Discussion 239
The above sketch As dangerously oversim plified. N ot o n ly are m y categories crude, b u t I have ignored national differences of trad itio n an d o th e r approaches to th e understanding o f mature. Im p articu lar, th e “hylozodstie” trad itio n of th e Renaissance, reapp earin g as G erm an “N a- turphilosophie”, w hose significance h as been seriously underestim ated.
A . P. Y ou ch kevitch
Professor Olszewski co rrectly raises a series o f problem s concerning th e periodization of th e h isto ry of science. The a tte m p t to periodize th e general h isto ry of n a tu ra l amd m athem atical sciences, as suggested by Professor K edrov, deserves m uch attention. M any principles recom m ended by him are correct. The concrete characteristic of p a rtic u la r periods, however, gives rise to objections.
This applies, first of ail, to th e period A, defined by P rofessor K edrov as a natural-philosophic period — /when th e ru d im en ts of n a tu re ’s knowledge a re p a rt of a single, u n d ifferen tiated philosophical science. K edrov extrapolates (the peculiarities of th e b rief developm ental epoch of G reek th o u g h t over th e w hole of th e A ntiquity. Was, how ever, the astronom y of Babylonians natural-philosophic? Was th e en tire m a them atics o f Greeks, th e ir 'statics amd hydrostatics, th e ir astronom y a n d so fo rth a p a rt of philosophy and w as the natural-philosophic m ethod of thinking really p ecu liar to- them ? B ut th e m entioned sciences d id play a leading role in th e G reco-Roman w orld. If I am allow ed to delineate th is period A w ith tw o o r th re e words, I should say th a t it was a period of form ation of n a tu ral and m athem atical sciences in th e tru e sense of this word.
The period a was — according to P ro fesso r K edrov — a scholastic one, in w hich the false sciences astrology, magic, alchem y a n d oth ers w ere prevailing. It is tru e th a t th is was th e period of scholasticism dom inating in philosophy an d th a t scholasticism ex erted 'influence on science. O n th e o th e r hand, th e re developed m athem atics, astronom y, mechanics {Oxford and Paris) a n d son on. The developm ent of cognition was n o t so sim ple amd so one-sided a process. T h ere as, besides, no reason to oppose — as Professor K edrov does —• Europe to M ussulm an countries. The philosophic amd theological scholasticism , ham pering th e progress of science, and th e stru g g le of th e progressive scientific th o u g h t against th e fo rm er existed both in C h ristian and M oslem countries.
A t last, n o t quite fo rtu n a te w as th e denom ination of th e p erio d B as em pirical a n d collecting. This m ay be a ttrib u te d to th e -cycle of biological sciences, b u t n o t to science as a w hole. In th a t period, th e leading ro-le w as being alread y 'played by th e com plex of m echanical- -m athem atical an d in p a r t physical, th a t is theoretical sciences.
