Der Natur-Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Interpretamente "res extensa" und "intima rerum"

Der Natur-Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Interpretamente : "res extensa" und "intima rerum"

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte. - Weinheim : Wiley-VCH Verl.-Ges., 1978. - 23(2000), Seite 399-418
1. Verfasser: Leinkauf, Thomas (VerfasserIn)
Format: Aufsatz
Sprache:German
Veröffentlicht: 2000
Zugriff auf das übergeordnete Werk:Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte
Schlagworte:Natur Begriff
LEADER 01000caa a2200265 4500
001 605859035
003 DE-627
005 20220706113606.0
007 tu
008 090731s2000 xx ||||| 00| ||ger c
035 |a (DE-627)605859035 
035 |a (DE-599)GBV605859035 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rakwb 
041 |a ger 
100 1 |a Leinkauf, Thomas  |e verfasserin  |4 aut 
245 1 4 |a Der Natur-Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Interpretamente  |b "res extensa" und "intima rerum"  |c Thomas Leinkauf 
264 1 |c 2000 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen  |b n  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Band  |b nc  |2 rdacarrier 
689 0 0 |D s  |0 (DE-588)4041358-5  |0 (DE-627)104288833  |0 (DE-576)209044594  |a Natur  |2 gnd 
689 0 1 |D s  |0 (DE-588)4005248-5  |0 (DE-627)106382365  |0 (DE-576)208859918  |a Begriff  |2 gnd 
689 0 |5 (DE-627) 
773 0 8 |i In  |t Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte  |d Weinheim : Wiley-VCH Verl.-Ges., 1978  |g 23(2000), Seite 399-418  |w (DE-627)129330124  |w (DE-600)134475-4  |w (DE-576)014584131  |x 0170-6233  |7 nnns 
773 1 8 |g volume:23  |g year:2000  |g pages:399-418 
912 |a GBV_USEFLAG_U 
912 |a GBV_ILN_21 
912 |a ISIL_DE-46 
912 |a SYSFLAG_1 
912 |a GBV_KXP 
912 |a GBV_ILN_11 
912 |a GBV_ILN_22 
912 |a GBV_ILN_23 
912 |a GBV_ILN_24 
912 |a GBV_ILN_31 
912 |a GBV_ILN_32 
912 |a GBV_ILN_39 
912 |a GBV_ILN_40 
912 |a GBV_ILN_50 
912 |a GBV_ILN_62 
912 |a GBV_ILN_65 
912 |a GBV_ILN_69 
912 |a GBV_ILN_70 
912 |a GBV_ILN_72 
912 |a GBV_ILN_74 
912 |a GBV_ILN_101 
912 |a GBV_ILN_105 
912 |a GBV_ILN_130 
912 |a GBV_ILN_171 
912 |a GBV_ILN_179 
912 |a GBV_ILN_193 
912 |a GBV_ILN_267 
912 |a GBV_ILN_350 
912 |a GBV_ILN_694 
912 |a GBV_ILN_702 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2001 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2002 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2004 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2005 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2007 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2008 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2009 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2011 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2012 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2016 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2018 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2020 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2021 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2027 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2043 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2056 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2066 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2157 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2315 
912 |a GBV_ILN_2505 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4012 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4027 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4028 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4029 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4035 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4036 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4037 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4046 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4082 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4103 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4112 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4125 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4126 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4155 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4193 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4251 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4253 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4277 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4302 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4305 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4306 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4310 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4311 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4316 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4317 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4318 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4319 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4323 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4325 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4326 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4346 
912 |a GBV_ILN_4700 
912 |a GBV_ILN_613 
912 |a GBV_ILN_50 
912 |a ISIL_DE-23 
912 |a GBV_ILN_613 
951 |a AR 
952 |d 23  |j 2000  |h 399-418 
980 |2 21  |1 01  |x 0046  |b 1180254384  |y xza  |z 08-09-10 
980 |2 50  |1 01  |x 0023  |b 1363994166  |h barock2001  |y x  |z 11-02-13 
980 |2 613  |1 01  |x 4613  |b 94291080X  |c 00  |f GWLB  |d FH allg ZA 940  |e --%%--  |j --%%--  |y x  |z 31-07-09 
982 |2 613  |1 00  |x 4613  |8 00  |0 (DE-627)615118224  |a Natur 
982 |2 613  |1 00  |x 4613  |8 01  |0 (DE-627)615117899  |a Moderne 
982 |2 613  |1 00  |x 4613  |8 02  |0 (DE-627)615110177  |a Ausdehnung 
982 |2 613  |1 00  |x 4613  |8 03  |0 (DE-627)615112889  |a Wesen 
982 |2 613  |1 00  |x 4613  |8 04  |0 (DE-627)626825849  |a Mechanismus 
983 |2 50  |1 00  |x DE-23  |8 00  |a BAROCK 14 - Wissenschafts- und Philosophiegeschichte 
983 |2 613  |1 00  |x 4613  |8 00  |0 (DE-627)614596769  |a 5.10  |b Naturphilosophie, Dynamik 
986 |2 613  |1 00  |x 4613  |a abs  |b Abstract: This article aims to show the general and broad use of the concept of nature in the philosophical discourse of the 17th century - and in this context it is obvious that this discourse includes both philosophy and theology. I will discuss two opposite views concerning its fundamental understanding of nature, yet will not go into elaborating differences concerning such particular concepts as, for example, space, void or motion. These views and the theoretical positions from which they emerged will here be called res extensa and intima rerum - this is done in order to clarify the basic opposition: there is no interior in pure extension and there is no extension at all in that what is called the interior. My aim is to show that these two views are, in fact, not quite as incompatible and contradictory as it easily may seem at first glance. Although I will for heuristic purposes introduce the two concepts res extensa and intima rerum as complete opposites and in a wholly contrary manner, ist should become clear that there exist both influences and interactions between these two notions. Theorists introduced here as advocates of the intima rerum-position, can, for example, be seen as having been influenced by the mechanistic, or res extensa-position, mainly through the formally and methodologically attractive geometric and mathematical argumentation. Likewise theorists advocating a mechanistic position can be said at some points to have been led by a substantial necessity concerning the contect of their argumentation to take recourse to the concept of intima rerum, at least partly or in a modified manner. 
986 |2 613  |1 00  |x 4613  |a abs  |b Zu Leibniz' Natur-Begriff. - Der Beitrag basiert auf einem Vortrag , geh. auf dem 10. Wolfenbütteler Barockkongress "Artes et scientiae ..." (5. - 8. April 2000, Wolfenbüttel). 
989 |2 613  |1 00  |x 4613  |a Abstract: This article aims to show the general and broad use of the concept of nature in the philosophical discourse of the 17th century - and in this context it is obvious that this discourse includes both philosophy and theology. I will discuss two opposite views concerning its fundamental understanding of nature, yet will not go into elaborating differences concerning such particular concepts as, for example, space, void or motion. These views and the theoretical positions from which they emerged will here be called res extensa and intima rerum - this is done in order to clarify the basic opposition: there is no interior in pure extension and there is no extension at all in that what is called the interior. My aim is to show that these two views are, in fact, not quite as incompatible and contradictory as it easily may seem at first glance. Although I will for heuristic purposes introduce the two concepts res extensa and intima rerum as complete opposites and in a wholly contrary manner, ist should become clear that there exist both influences and interactions between these two notions. Theorists introduced here as advocates of the intima rerum-position, can, for example, be seen as having been influenced by the mechanistic, or res extensa-position, mainly through the formally and methodologically attractive geometric and mathematical argumentation. Likewise theorists advocating a mechanistic position can be said at some points to have been led by a substantial necessity concerning the contect of their argumentation to take recourse to the concept of intima rerum, at least partly or in a modified manner. 
989 |2 613  |1 00  |x 4613  |a Zu Leibniz' Natur-Begriff. - Der Beitrag basiert auf einem Vortrag , geh. auf dem 10. Wolfenbütteler Barockkongress "Artes et scientiae ..." (5. - 8. April 2000, Wolfenbüttel). 
995 |2 50  |1 01  |x 0023  |a barock2001