当前位置: 首页>博士论文>资源详情
16世纪帕拉塞尔苏斯主义的经验观念
中文摘要

“经验”是16-17世纪自然哲学与科学中的核心词汇,追溯经验-实验科学的发展史对于理解科学革命来说具有根本性的意义。从科学思想史的角度看来,理解这一过程并不能局限于叙述现代意义上“经验”或“实验”的概念及其实践的产生过程,它一方面要求解释相关概念在前现代时期自然哲学和科学中的用法、意义及关系,另一方面则要求进一步解释来自“经验”或“实验”的知识如何及为何逐渐取得主导性的地位。 帕拉塞尔苏斯与帕拉塞尔苏斯主义者是近代早期最为注重“经验”认识的群体之一,佩格尔、威克斯及史密斯等学者都曾考察帕拉塞尔苏斯的经验观念,并对它在科学史中的地位给出不同的评价。然而,学者对帕拉塞尔苏斯经验观念的统一特征及科学史价值并未取得一致的见解;且对16世纪帕拉塞尔苏斯主义中经验主题的发展缺少研究。本论文试图从学界已有研究出发,探索“经验” (experientia/Erfahrung)这一观念性主题在帕拉塞尔苏斯及16世纪帕拉塞尔苏斯主义者著作中的阐释与辩护,并试图讨论其“经验”观念在科学革命中所占据的可能地位。在众多帕拉塞尔苏斯主义者之中,本文只选取活跃于16世纪的代表性人物的相关论述进行重点研究,其中包括亚当·博登斯坦、热拉尔·多恩、彼得·塞维里努斯、特奥多尔·茨温格尔及奥斯瓦尔德·克罗尔。 本文试图展示,帕拉塞尔苏斯本人的“经验”观念之根本特征在于“启示”,作为“启示”的经验是炼金术操作与宗教性体验沟通融汇的桥梁,它具有“揭示隐秘”与“朝向完满”两个基本面向。一方面,“经验”是对自然事物中不可见的能力或本质的领会,另一方面,它也必然包含着将不可见之物转为可见的实践性操作。这种“经验”要求人不满足于偶然的体验或对已经获取的知识的演示,并鼓励人去发现隐藏于自然之中的、未获取的知识。1 6世纪帕拉塞尔苏斯主义者以各自不同的方式发展了“经验”的意涵,并借鉴赫尔墨斯主义、新柏拉图主义及希波克拉底主义等思想资源对这一观念进行支持和传播:博登斯坦依据经验性原则驳斥了亚里士多德的本原理论;多恩将炼金术经验的精神性方面发扬光大;塞维里努斯借助“种子”理论为经验性研究提供了形而上学基础;茨温格尔将希波克拉底主义传统与帕拉塞尔苏斯式经验相结合,并率先提出“经验”与“史志”的等同;克罗尔为经验性研究提供了基督教式的阐释与辩护。尽管帕拉塞尔苏斯主义者始终未能发展出现代意义上有效的科学方法论,但其“经验”观念仍在三方面为近代自然科学的兴起提供了积极的动力:首先,这种观念为推翻亚里士多德主义自然哲学的统治地位作出了贡献;其次,与炼金术操作相关的经验不仅鼓励人们采取实践性态度进行自然研究,而且提倡获取对自然界的深度认识;最后,经验探究与宗教使命的紧密结合不仅创造了一种强有力的、易于为人接受的“经验”话语,而且为经验与实验研究确立了合法性与权威性。 关键词:16世纪,帕拉塞尔苏斯,帕拉塞尔苏斯主义者,经验

英文摘要

“Experience” (experientia) is a key concept of natural philosophy and science in the 16〓 and 17〓 century. To trace the history of development of empirical-experimental science is of fundamental importance for an adequate understanding of the Scientific Revolution. From the viewpoint of intellectual history of science, it is not sufficient to understand this process if the study is limited to a description of the genesis of the concept and practise of “experience” and “experiment” in the modern sense. On one hand, it requires one to explain the use, meaning and relationship of related concepts in premodern natural philosophy and sciences, on the other hand, it is necessary to investigate how and why knowledges gained from “experience” or “experiment” gradually dominate the intellectual scene. In the early modern times, Paracelsus and the Paracesians constitute a group of people who have placed great emphasis on knowledge based on “experience”. Eminent scholars such as Walter Pagel, Andrew Weeks, and Pamela Smith have investigated the notion of experience in Paracelsus’ writings, and they have given diversed evaluation of this notion in regard to the history of science. However, when discussing Paracelsus’ notion of experience, scholars generally lack consensus in regard to its unified characteristic and its value in the history of science. There is also not sufficient research on the development of the theme of experience in 16〓 century Paracelsianism. Based on past studies on this subject, this study attempts to explore the interpretation and elaboration of “experience” (experientia/Erfahrung) as a notional theme in Paracelsus and 16〓 century Paracelsians. It also attempt to discuss the possible position it occupies in the Scientific Revolution. Among many Paracelsians, this study only selects five most representative ones, i.e. Adam Bodenstein, Gerard Dorn, Peter Severinus, Theodor Zwinger, and Oswald Croll, and focuses on their relative writings. This study attempts to show that the fundamental characteristic of Paracelsus' notion of experience is that it could be seen as a “revelation”. The experience as revealation is a key notion that bridges alchemical practice and religious experience, and it contains two basic aspects, i.e. the disclosure of the hidden and the attainment of perfection. On one hand, “experience” is the comprehension of invisible virtues and essences hidden in nature, on the other hand, it necessarily implies the practical operation that turns invisible things to visible. This kind of experience requires one not to be satisfied with occasional experience or demonstration of knowledge already gained, but to discover those knowledge hidden in nature and to be obtained. The Paracelsians developed the sense of “experience” according to their different understanding, they also supplied and propagated this notional theme by borrowing Hermetic, neoplatonic, and Hippocratic ideas: Bodenstein refuted the Aristotelian theory of principles on an empirical basis; Dorn developed the spiritual aspect of alchemical experience; Severinus provided a metaphysical fundation for experiential investigation of nature with his theory of seeds; Zwinger combined Paracelsian practical experience with the Hippocratical tradition, and took lead on the identification of historia with experientia; Croll produced a Christian interpretation and defence for the experiential study of nature. Although the Paracelsians eventually failed to develop an efficient scientific methodology in the modem sense, it could be argued that their notion of experience played a positive role in the process of rise of modern science in three aspects. Firstly, this notion helped to overthrow the rule of Aristotelian natural philosophy. Secondly, the experience related to alchemical study encouraged people to take a practical attitude in the research of nature, it also promoted people to obtain deeper knowledges about natural things. Finally, the close union between experiential study and religious mission not only created a strong and popular discourse about experience, but also helped to establish the legitimacy and authority of experiential and experimental study. KEY WORDS: 16〓 Century, Paracelsus, Paracelsian, Experience

作者相关
主题相关
看过该书的人还在看哪些书