Much of the ongoing history and philosophy of science (say as we find it at Max Planck in Berlin) that tries to avoid taking its cue from the Vienna Cirlce, has its roots in the thought of Nietzsche as re-interpreted or re-oriented by Max Weber, Freud, Léon Brunschvicg, and Durkheim. The crucial philosopher (institutionally and intellectually) is Gaston Bachelard, who stands behind the thought of Kuhn and Foucault. For the usual parochial reasons, Bachelard is still largely ignored among English speaking philosophers. (I am also guilty of this. I suspect Bachelard is only studied among lit crit types.) Yet, one day some ambitious soul must re-think philosophy of science from the ground up, and when s/he traces our roots back, she will encounter Bachelard as one of the crucial figure that needs to be overcome. In doing so, s/he will find a supremely helpful philosophical guide in Christina Chimisso's monograph. Chimisso, who teaches at the Open University in the UK, is this week's most underrated philosopher (see the rules here; I welcome nominations privately and publicly)!
Chimisso follows her own intellectual lodestone. In her works she reveals the high aspirations that once animated history and philosophy of science with a lovely eye for contextual and intellectual detail. She helps reminds us what was once at stake in the distinctions and conceptual moves that are now taken for granted in the sediments on which three year PhDs are built. One of my favorite pieces by Chimisso is this honest assessment of the tragic Helen Metzger. But, perhaps, this piece is the more important one.
Recent Comments