Johannes Müller und die Philosophie

MICHAEL HAGNER and BETTINA WAHRING-SCHMIDT (eds), Johannes Muller und die Philosophie, Berlin, Akademie Verlag, 1992, pp. 341, DM 88.00 (3-05-002232-9). Johannes Muller (1801-1858) is often referred to as the "father" of modern German physiology. His education and subsequent career coincided with the period during which the natural sciences were gradually emancipated from the "Queen of the sciences"-philosophy. Muller's inaugural address at Bonn University in 1824, 'Vom Bedurfnis der Physiologie nach einer philosophischen Naturbetrachtung' ('On physiology's need for a philosophical contemplation of nature') provoked great interest at the time and remains a central source of reference for this present volume. None of the authors here accepts Du Bois Reymond's thesis that Muller's work can be divided into earlier "romantic" phases followed by a more or less distinct empirical one. Rather, they argue, throughout his career, Muller assimilated various philosophical strands into his scientific work, with Schelling, Rudolphi and Goethe as successive influences. Several of the authors Wahring-Schmidt, Mazzolini, and Hagner-examine Muller's relationship to Kant, Spinoza and other philosophers. Muller's Kantian language has long been appreciated; Hagner further suggests that Spinoza's writings help shape Muller's research on sensory physiology and provided a formula for his moral and ethical aspirations. However, the essays in this volume go beyond mere issues of "influence" to suggest that Muller's employment of philosophy was strongly affected by his desire to give physiology a stable scientific foundation. More generally, these essays remind us that attitudes towards Naturphilosophie have changed over time. During the second half of the nineteenth century, the movement was simply castigated by those who disapproved of all philosophy within science. As Lammel points out, however, critics of Naturphilosophie had their own, positivistic philosophical agenda. The old metaphysics was simply replaced by a new one. In his afterword Peter McLaughlin wonders whether: