Loading…
Kiyozawa Manshi’s Two Theories of Evolution and Their Western Inspiration
"1 Inoue Enryö (1858-1919), undoubtedly the Meiji period's most successful public philosopher, came to embrace many Spencerian ideas on evolution under the influence of Toyama Masakazu (1848-1900), a devout Spencerian, during his time as a student there (from 1881 to 1885).2 Ernest F. Feno...
Saved in:
Published in: | Journal of Japanese philosophy 2023, Vol.9 (9), p.77-99 |
---|---|
Main Author: | |
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | Get full text |
Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
cited_by | |
---|---|
cites | |
container_end_page | 99 |
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 77 |
container_title | Journal of Japanese philosophy |
container_volume | 9 |
creator | PROOI, Dennis |
description | "1 Inoue Enryö (1858-1919), undoubtedly the Meiji period's most successful public philosopher, came to embrace many Spencerian ideas on evolution under the influence of Toyama Masakazu (1848-1900), a devout Spencerian, during his time as a student there (from 1881 to 1885).2 Ernest F. Fenollosa (1853-1908), an American philosopher who exerted great influence over the university's young philosophical minds, was working on a synthesis of the Spencerian and Hegelian philosophical systems.3 He had been brought to Tokyo University by the Darwinian zoologist Edward S. Morse (1838-1925), who was himself instrumental in the spread of evolutionary ideas. Spencer prided himself in having been the hrst to formulate the principle of evolution, remarking in the revised version of Social Statics (1892) that he had arrived at the general idea as early as 1850, many years before The Origin of Species had appeared in print.4 From Spencer's point of view, Darwin had done no more than confirm a posteriori for biological organisms what was in fact an a priori law of evolution, established by Spencer in First Principles (1867) both inductively and deductively as the universal tendency of phenomena to pass from "an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity," a process accompanied by "an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion. The opposing camp of German philosophy-following William Hamilton (17881856), derided by Spencer as "absolute theorisers"-made abundant use of such metaphysics to defend a teleological understanding of evolution-the kind of understanding Darwin (with his emphasis on the non-teleological character of natural selection) and Spencer (with his focus on matter in motion) attempted to render obsolete? Under the influence of Fenollosa, many students of philosophy at Tokyo University became attracted to the alternative German teleological model of evolution, the history of which via the German Romantics goes back to Leibniz's attempt to reintroduce into physics the idea of final causes after these in that domain had been eliminated by Descartes.7 Descartes, to begin with, was the one to revolutionize natural philosophy by reducing the physical world to one of matter in motion ruled by efficient causation, imagining, much like Spencer two centuries later, that such a minimalist view of the natural world would suffice to bring universal order to primordial chaos without the continuing active intervention of God.8 S |
doi_str_mv | 10.1353/jjp.2023.a913631 |
format | article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2892719264</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A811485544</galeid><sourcerecordid>A811485544</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c238t-746cd51acd47e1e19d5c46096af52bed4376413b28f9dce1c9dec6effce4d6f73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkb1OwzAUhSMEElXpzhiJucF_-fFYVQWqFjFQxGi59jV11MbBTkBl4jV4PZ6ERC1gD7buPcf36HMUXWKUYJrS67KsE4IITSTHNKP4JBoQSvIxIoif_t4xT8-jUQgl6hbPEWb5IFos7N59yHcZ38sqbOz351eIV-8uXm3AeQshdiaevblt21hXxbLSfcf6-BlCA76K51WorZd99yI6M3IbYHQ8h9HTzWw1vRsvH27n08lyrAgtmnHOMqVTLJVmOWDAXKeKZYhn0qRkDZrRPGOYrklhuFaAFdegMjBGAdOZyekwujq8W3v32nY5ROlaX3UjBSk4yTEnGetUyUH1IrcgbGVc46XqtoadVa4CY7v6pMCYFWnKegM6GJR3IXgwovZ2J_1eYCR6zKLDLHrM4oi5s7C_JCWoZtcG-A9zEInHHn__E4T25FNOfwAMxIHg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2892719264</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Kiyozawa Manshi’s Two Theories of Evolution and Their Western Inspiration</title><source>Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection</source><creator>PROOI, Dennis</creator><creatorcontrib>PROOI, Dennis</creatorcontrib><description>"1 Inoue Enryö (1858-1919), undoubtedly the Meiji period's most successful public philosopher, came to embrace many Spencerian ideas on evolution under the influence of Toyama Masakazu (1848-1900), a devout Spencerian, during his time as a student there (from 1881 to 1885).2 Ernest F. Fenollosa (1853-1908), an American philosopher who exerted great influence over the university's young philosophical minds, was working on a synthesis of the Spencerian and Hegelian philosophical systems.3 He had been brought to Tokyo University by the Darwinian zoologist Edward S. Morse (1838-1925), who was himself instrumental in the spread of evolutionary ideas. Spencer prided himself in having been the hrst to formulate the principle of evolution, remarking in the revised version of Social Statics (1892) that he had arrived at the general idea as early as 1850, many years before The Origin of Species had appeared in print.4 From Spencer's point of view, Darwin had done no more than confirm a posteriori for biological organisms what was in fact an a priori law of evolution, established by Spencer in First Principles (1867) both inductively and deductively as the universal tendency of phenomena to pass from "an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity," a process accompanied by "an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion. The opposing camp of German philosophy-following William Hamilton (17881856), derided by Spencer as "absolute theorisers"-made abundant use of such metaphysics to defend a teleological understanding of evolution-the kind of understanding Darwin (with his emphasis on the non-teleological character of natural selection) and Spencer (with his focus on matter in motion) attempted to render obsolete? Under the influence of Fenollosa, many students of philosophy at Tokyo University became attracted to the alternative German teleological model of evolution, the history of which via the German Romantics goes back to Leibniz's attempt to reintroduce into physics the idea of final causes after these in that domain had been eliminated by Descartes.7 Descartes, to begin with, was the one to revolutionize natural philosophy by reducing the physical world to one of matter in motion ruled by efficient causation, imagining, much like Spencer two centuries later, that such a minimalist view of the natural world would suffice to bring universal order to primordial chaos without the continuing active intervention of God.8 Since Japanese thought itself also contained many ideas that could retroactively be construed as evolutionary theory-such as the Mahayana doctrine that "everything (the grasses, the trees, and the lands) shall attain Buddhahood" {somokukokudoshikkaijyobutsu ... -the Meiji philosophers had a great variety of evolutionary theories to choose from.9 As G. Clinton Godart demonstrates in his 2017 Darwin, Dharma, and the Divine: Evolutionary Theory and Religion in Modern Japan, the reception of evolutionary theory in Japan was not one of passive acceptance but active construal, most agreeing with the fact of evolution but debates raging on precisely how it was to be conceived.1" The religiously minded were keen to avoid the kind of evolutionary theory materialists espoused, for this meant that human existence amounted to little more than, as Katö Hiroyuki put it, an amoral "the stronger eat the weaker" (kyonikujakushoku ...) or a survival of the fittest.11 They favored the alternative offered by Fenollosa, who situated evolution inside of a pantheist worldview inspired by German romanticism and accordingly promised a way to avoid being delivered into a universe cold and uncaring.12 Kiyozawa Manshi (1863-1903), the Meiji-era philosopher who is the subject of this paper, studied philosophy (among other subjects) at Tokyo University from 1883 to 1887 and was among the throng of students inspired by Fenollosa's message.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2327-0195</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 2327-0209</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2327-0209</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1353/jjp.2023.a913631</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Albany: State University of New York Press</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Buddhism ; Evolution ; Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich ; Lotze, Rudolf Hermann ; Philosophers ; Philosophy</subject><ispartof>Journal of Japanese philosophy, 2023, Vol.9 (9), p.77-99</ispartof><rights>Copyright © State University of New York Press</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2023 State University Of New York Press</rights><rights>Copyright State University of New York Press 2023</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,4025,27925,27926,27927</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>PROOI, Dennis</creatorcontrib><title>Kiyozawa Manshi’s Two Theories of Evolution and Their Western Inspiration</title><title>Journal of Japanese philosophy</title><description>"1 Inoue Enryö (1858-1919), undoubtedly the Meiji period's most successful public philosopher, came to embrace many Spencerian ideas on evolution under the influence of Toyama Masakazu (1848-1900), a devout Spencerian, during his time as a student there (from 1881 to 1885).2 Ernest F. Fenollosa (1853-1908), an American philosopher who exerted great influence over the university's young philosophical minds, was working on a synthesis of the Spencerian and Hegelian philosophical systems.3 He had been brought to Tokyo University by the Darwinian zoologist Edward S. Morse (1838-1925), who was himself instrumental in the spread of evolutionary ideas. Spencer prided himself in having been the hrst to formulate the principle of evolution, remarking in the revised version of Social Statics (1892) that he had arrived at the general idea as early as 1850, many years before The Origin of Species had appeared in print.4 From Spencer's point of view, Darwin had done no more than confirm a posteriori for biological organisms what was in fact an a priori law of evolution, established by Spencer in First Principles (1867) both inductively and deductively as the universal tendency of phenomena to pass from "an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity," a process accompanied by "an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion. The opposing camp of German philosophy-following William Hamilton (17881856), derided by Spencer as "absolute theorisers"-made abundant use of such metaphysics to defend a teleological understanding of evolution-the kind of understanding Darwin (with his emphasis on the non-teleological character of natural selection) and Spencer (with his focus on matter in motion) attempted to render obsolete? Under the influence of Fenollosa, many students of philosophy at Tokyo University became attracted to the alternative German teleological model of evolution, the history of which via the German Romantics goes back to Leibniz's attempt to reintroduce into physics the idea of final causes after these in that domain had been eliminated by Descartes.7 Descartes, to begin with, was the one to revolutionize natural philosophy by reducing the physical world to one of matter in motion ruled by efficient causation, imagining, much like Spencer two centuries later, that such a minimalist view of the natural world would suffice to bring universal order to primordial chaos without the continuing active intervention of God.8 Since Japanese thought itself also contained many ideas that could retroactively be construed as evolutionary theory-such as the Mahayana doctrine that "everything (the grasses, the trees, and the lands) shall attain Buddhahood" {somokukokudoshikkaijyobutsu ... -the Meiji philosophers had a great variety of evolutionary theories to choose from.9 As G. Clinton Godart demonstrates in his 2017 Darwin, Dharma, and the Divine: Evolutionary Theory and Religion in Modern Japan, the reception of evolutionary theory in Japan was not one of passive acceptance but active construal, most agreeing with the fact of evolution but debates raging on precisely how it was to be conceived.1" The religiously minded were keen to avoid the kind of evolutionary theory materialists espoused, for this meant that human existence amounted to little more than, as Katö Hiroyuki put it, an amoral "the stronger eat the weaker" (kyonikujakushoku ...) or a survival of the fittest.11 They favored the alternative offered by Fenollosa, who situated evolution inside of a pantheist worldview inspired by German romanticism and accordingly promised a way to avoid being delivered into a universe cold and uncaring.12 Kiyozawa Manshi (1863-1903), the Meiji-era philosopher who is the subject of this paper, studied philosophy (among other subjects) at Tokyo University from 1883 to 1887 and was among the throng of students inspired by Fenollosa's message.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Buddhism</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich</subject><subject>Lotze, Rudolf Hermann</subject><subject>Philosophers</subject><subject>Philosophy</subject><issn>2327-0195</issn><issn>2327-0209</issn><issn>2327-0209</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNpFkb1OwzAUhSMEElXpzhiJucF_-fFYVQWqFjFQxGi59jV11MbBTkBl4jV4PZ6ERC1gD7buPcf36HMUXWKUYJrS67KsE4IITSTHNKP4JBoQSvIxIoif_t4xT8-jUQgl6hbPEWb5IFos7N59yHcZ38sqbOz351eIV-8uXm3AeQshdiaevblt21hXxbLSfcf6-BlCA76K51WorZd99yI6M3IbYHQ8h9HTzWw1vRsvH27n08lyrAgtmnHOMqVTLJVmOWDAXKeKZYhn0qRkDZrRPGOYrklhuFaAFdegMjBGAdOZyekwujq8W3v32nY5ROlaX3UjBSk4yTEnGetUyUH1IrcgbGVc46XqtoadVa4CY7v6pMCYFWnKegM6GJR3IXgwovZ2J_1eYCR6zKLDLHrM4oi5s7C_JCWoZtcG-A9zEInHHn__E4T25FNOfwAMxIHg</recordid><startdate>2023</startdate><enddate>2023</enddate><creator>PROOI, Dennis</creator><general>State University of New York Press</general><general>State University Of New York Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>AABKS</scope><scope>ABSDQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2023</creationdate><title>Kiyozawa Manshi’s Two Theories of Evolution and Their Western Inspiration</title><author>PROOI, Dennis</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c238t-746cd51acd47e1e19d5c46096af52bed4376413b28f9dce1c9dec6effce4d6f73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Buddhism</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich</topic><topic>Lotze, Rudolf Hermann</topic><topic>Philosophers</topic><topic>Philosophy</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>PROOI, Dennis</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Philosophy Collection</collection><collection>Philosophy Database</collection><jtitle>Journal of Japanese philosophy</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>PROOI, Dennis</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Kiyozawa Manshi’s Two Theories of Evolution and Their Western Inspiration</atitle><jtitle>Journal of Japanese philosophy</jtitle><date>2023</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>9</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>77</spage><epage>99</epage><pages>77-99</pages><issn>2327-0195</issn><issn>2327-0209</issn><eissn>2327-0209</eissn><abstract>"1 Inoue Enryö (1858-1919), undoubtedly the Meiji period's most successful public philosopher, came to embrace many Spencerian ideas on evolution under the influence of Toyama Masakazu (1848-1900), a devout Spencerian, during his time as a student there (from 1881 to 1885).2 Ernest F. Fenollosa (1853-1908), an American philosopher who exerted great influence over the university's young philosophical minds, was working on a synthesis of the Spencerian and Hegelian philosophical systems.3 He had been brought to Tokyo University by the Darwinian zoologist Edward S. Morse (1838-1925), who was himself instrumental in the spread of evolutionary ideas. Spencer prided himself in having been the hrst to formulate the principle of evolution, remarking in the revised version of Social Statics (1892) that he had arrived at the general idea as early as 1850, many years before The Origin of Species had appeared in print.4 From Spencer's point of view, Darwin had done no more than confirm a posteriori for biological organisms what was in fact an a priori law of evolution, established by Spencer in First Principles (1867) both inductively and deductively as the universal tendency of phenomena to pass from "an indefinite, incoherent homogeneity to a definite, coherent heterogeneity," a process accompanied by "an integration of matter and concomitant dissipation of motion. The opposing camp of German philosophy-following William Hamilton (17881856), derided by Spencer as "absolute theorisers"-made abundant use of such metaphysics to defend a teleological understanding of evolution-the kind of understanding Darwin (with his emphasis on the non-teleological character of natural selection) and Spencer (with his focus on matter in motion) attempted to render obsolete? Under the influence of Fenollosa, many students of philosophy at Tokyo University became attracted to the alternative German teleological model of evolution, the history of which via the German Romantics goes back to Leibniz's attempt to reintroduce into physics the idea of final causes after these in that domain had been eliminated by Descartes.7 Descartes, to begin with, was the one to revolutionize natural philosophy by reducing the physical world to one of matter in motion ruled by efficient causation, imagining, much like Spencer two centuries later, that such a minimalist view of the natural world would suffice to bring universal order to primordial chaos without the continuing active intervention of God.8 Since Japanese thought itself also contained many ideas that could retroactively be construed as evolutionary theory-such as the Mahayana doctrine that "everything (the grasses, the trees, and the lands) shall attain Buddhahood" {somokukokudoshikkaijyobutsu ... -the Meiji philosophers had a great variety of evolutionary theories to choose from.9 As G. Clinton Godart demonstrates in his 2017 Darwin, Dharma, and the Divine: Evolutionary Theory and Religion in Modern Japan, the reception of evolutionary theory in Japan was not one of passive acceptance but active construal, most agreeing with the fact of evolution but debates raging on precisely how it was to be conceived.1" The religiously minded were keen to avoid the kind of evolutionary theory materialists espoused, for this meant that human existence amounted to little more than, as Katö Hiroyuki put it, an amoral "the stronger eat the weaker" (kyonikujakushoku ...) or a survival of the fittest.11 They favored the alternative offered by Fenollosa, who situated evolution inside of a pantheist worldview inspired by German romanticism and accordingly promised a way to avoid being delivered into a universe cold and uncaring.12 Kiyozawa Manshi (1863-1903), the Meiji-era philosopher who is the subject of this paper, studied philosophy (among other subjects) at Tokyo University from 1883 to 1887 and was among the throng of students inspired by Fenollosa's message.</abstract><cop>Albany</cop><pub>State University of New York Press</pub><doi>10.1353/jjp.2023.a913631</doi><tpages>23</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2327-0195 |
ispartof | Journal of Japanese philosophy, 2023, Vol.9 (9), p.77-99 |
issn | 2327-0195 2327-0209 2327-0209 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2892719264 |
source | Project Muse:Jisc Collections:Project MUSE Journals Agreement 2024:Premium Collection |
subjects | Analysis Buddhism Evolution Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Lotze, Rudolf Hermann Philosophers Philosophy |
title | Kiyozawa Manshi’s Two Theories of Evolution and Their Western Inspiration |
url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-17T23%3A40%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Kiyozawa%20Manshi%E2%80%99s%20Two%20Theories%20of%20Evolution%20and%20Their%20Western%20Inspiration&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20Japanese%20philosophy&rft.au=PROOI,%20Dennis&rft.date=2023&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=77&rft.epage=99&rft.pages=77-99&rft.issn=2327-0195&rft.eissn=2327-0209&rft_id=info:doi/10.1353/jjp.2023.a913631&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA811485544%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c238t-746cd51acd47e1e19d5c46096af52bed4376413b28f9dce1c9dec6effce4d6f73%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2892719264&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A811485544&rfr_iscdi=true |