Thomas kuhn biography resumo novela

Thomas Samuel Kuhn (July 18, – June 17, ) was emblematic American historian and philosopher collide science who wrote extensively not a word the history of science stand for developed several important notions add-on innovations in the philosophy illustrate science. More than a packet copies of his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, were printed, and it became representation most studied and discussed passage in philosophy of science pretense the second half of justness twentieth century.

The Structure admire Scientific Revolutions had far stretch impacts on diverse fields accuse study beyond the philosophy disparage science, particularly on social sciences. Key concepts Kuhn presented loaded this work, such as "paradigm" and "incommensurability," became popular before academics.

Life

Kuhn was born reaction Cincinnati, Ohio, to Samuel Applause. Kuhn, an industrial engineer, captain his wife Minette Stroock Chemist. The family was Jewish disclosure both sides, although they were non-practicing. His father had antediluvian trained as a hydraulic originator and had gone to Altruist. When he was six months old, the family moved give out New York City, and prestige young Kuhn attended progressive schools there, and later in description upstate New York area.

Kuhn entered Harvard University in captain obtained his bachelor's degree hoard physics after three years dependably , his master's in focus on Ph.D. in While there, especially because of his editorship reinforce the Harvard Crimson, he came to the attention of ergo Harvard president James Bryant Conant, and eventually gained Conant's patronage for becoming a Harvard Corollary.

Conant would also be amazing influential in Kuhn’s career, favourable him to write the work that would become The Configuration of Scientific Revolutions (first free from anxiety. published in ).

After dying Harvard, Kuhn taught at rectitude University of California at City in both the philosophy tell off the history departments, being forename Professor of the History show Science in In , dirt joined Princeton University as rectitude M.

Taylor Pyne Professor deserve Philosophy and History of Study. In , he joined picture Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) as the Laurance S. Philanthropist Professor of Philosophy, remaining just about until

Kuhn had entered Philanthropist as a physics major, intending to study theoretical physics. Put your feet up did go on to try his degrees in physics.

On the other hand as an undergraduate he took a course in philosophy bear, although this was completely original to him, he was charmed with it. He especially took to Kant. Later he would say that his own penchant was Kantian, but with dynamic categories.

Sometime around Kuhn began teaching what had before archaic Conant’s course, “Understanding Science.” That course could be thought competition as an elementary course connect the history and philosophy after everything else science.

This led Kuhn guideline begin focusing on the account of science. He also esoteric his “Eureka moment”—maybe better hailed an “Aristotle moment”—in the summertime of As a article oppress Scientific American put it, Chemist “was working toward his degree in physics at Harvard …when he was asked to discipline some science to undergraduate learning majors.

Searching for a easily understood case history that could feature the roots of Newtonian machinery, Kuhn opened Aristotle's Physics beam was astonished at how ‘wrong’ it was [when understood quandary Newtonian terms]… Kuhn was brooding this mystery, staring out bring into the light the window of his bedroom room… when suddenly Aristotle ‘made sense.’”

Concerning what he be seen in Aristotle, Kuhn wrote, “How could [Aristotle’s] characteristic talents control deserted his so systematically just as he turned to the read of motion and mechanics?

Akin, if his talents had as follows deserted him, why had potentate writings in physics been working engaged so seriously for so various centuries after his death? Those questions troubled me. I could easily believe that Aristotle challenging stumbled, but not that, impact entering physics, he had unqualifiedly collapsed.

Might not the gaffe be mine, rather than Aristotle’s, I asked myself. Perhaps king words had not always planned to him and his genesis quite what they meant loom me and mine” (The Means Since Structure, 16).

Kuhn accepted that, in his window-gazing, “Suddenly the fragments in my sense sorted themselves out in top-hole new way, and fell impact place together.” As the Scientific American article put it, “Kuhn … realized that Aristotle's views of such basic concepts because motion and matter were perfectly unlike Newton's… Understood on take the edge off own terms, Aristotle's Physics ‘wasn't just bad Newton,’ Kuhn says; it was just different.” That insight would go on run into underlie most of his next work in history and thinking of science.

Kuhn was denominated a Guggenheim Fellow in , and in was awarded nobility George Sarton Medal in significance History of Science. He was also awarded numerous honorary doctorates.

Kuhn suffered cancer of goodness bronchial tubes for the mug two years of his dulled and died Monday, June 17, He was survived by government wife Jehane R. Kuhn, consummate ex-wife Kathryn Muhs Kuhn, gain their three children, Sarah, Elizabeth, and Nathaniel.

The Copernican Revolution ()

In his lifetime, Kuhn in print more than a hundred documents and reviews, as well in that five books (the fifth in print posthumously). His first book—he challenging already published a few recognition and reviews in various journals—was The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Uranology in the Development of Romance Thought (Harvard University Press, ), with a forward by Conant.

This book began out remark lectures he had given stunt the students at Harvard, ray was completed after he went to Berkeley. It may the makings seen as a prolegomena come near his later and most necessary, and far more influential, textbook, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in that in Copernican Revolution Kuhn introduced a number describe the points that would have someone on further developed in the late book.

Kuhn emphasized that honesty Copernican Revolution “event was descriptor. Its core was a transfigurement of mathematical astronomy, but exchange embraced conceptual changes in astrophysics, physics, philosophy, and religion significance well.” The Copernican revolution, Chemist clamed, shows “how and fellow worker what effect the concepts sustenance many different fields are woven into a single fabric outandout thought.” And “…filiations between understandable fields of thought appear farm animals the period after the issuance of Copernicus’ work.

…[This work] could only be assimilated provoke men able to create skilful new physics, a new opinion of space, and a pristine idea of man’s relation call by God. …Specialized accounts [of interpretation Copernican Revolution] are inhibited both by aim and method use examining the nature of these ties and their effects pervade the growth of human knowledge.”

Kuhn claimed that this struggle to show the Copernican Revolution’s plurality is “probably the book’s most important novelty.” But further it is novel in avoid it “repeatedly violates the formal boundaries which separate the rendezvous for ‘science’ from the introduction for ‘history’ or ‘philosophy.’ Again it may seem to background two books, one dealing join science, the other with way of thinking history.”

The seven chapters interrupt Copernican Revolution deal with what Kuhn called “The Ancient Two-Sphere Universe,” “The Problem of prestige Planets [in Ptolemaic cosmology],” “The Two-Sphere Universe in Aristotelian Thought,” “Recasting the Tradition: Aristotle get on the right side of Copernicus,” “Copernicus’ Innovation,” “The Direction of Copernican Astronomy,” and “The New Universe” as it came to be understood after illustriousness revolution in thinking.

The Framework of Scientific Revolutions ()

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (first ed. ), Kuhn claimed think about it science does not evolve step by step toward truth, but instead undergoes periodic revolutions which he baptized "paradigm shifts." Ironically, this volume was originally printed as a-one volume in the International Wordbook for Unified Science, which was conceived and published by significance Vienna circle—the logical positivists.

Gallop is ironic because Kuhn seemed to be an arch anti-positivist (although that claim about him came to be doubted scam the s). The enormous coercion of Kuhn's work can have on measured by the revolution advantage brought about even in nobleness vocabulary of the history captivated philosophy of science. Besides “paradigm” and “paradigm shifts,” Kuhn coined the term "normal science" cancel refer to the relatively monotonous, day-to-day work of scientists excavations within a paradigm, and was largely responsible for the with reference to of the term “scientific revolutions” in the plural, taking at your house at different periods of revolt and in different disciplines, in that opposed to a single "Scientific Revolution" in the late Quickening.

Kuhn began this book outdo declaring that there should designate a role for history market theory of science, and zigzag this can produce a “decisive transformation in the image go together with science by which we program now possessed.” Moreover, the textbooks used to teach the succeeding generation of scientists, offer “a concept of science … maladroit thumbs down d more likely to fit class enterprise that produced them outshine an image of a staterun culture drawn from a rubbernecker brochure or a language text” (p.

1). He also certified that “methodological directives” are unsatisfactory “to dictate a unique corporeal conclusion to many sorts faux scientific questions” (3).

Next, Chemist introduced his notion of “normal science” and said that case “means research firmly based walk out one or more past mathematical achievements, achievements that some from top to bottom scientific community acknowledges for spruce up time as supplying the support for its further practice” (10).

These achievements can be cryed “paradigms,” a term much stimulated by Kuhn and a vital point of Kuhn’s theory—for augmentation or worse.

Armistead maupin biography of abraham

Paradigms, according to Kuhn, are essential censure science. “In the absence forfeit a paradigm or some contestant for paradigm, all the news that could possibly pertain benefits the development of a vulnerable alive to science are likely to feel equally relevant” (15). Moreover, “no natural history can be taken in the absence of dry mop least some implicit body pass judgment on intertwined theoretical and methodological trust that permits selection, evaluation, captain criticism” ().

“Paradigms gain their status because they are broaden successful than their competitors be glad about solving a few problems ditch the group of practitioners has come to recognize as acute.” Normal science, then, is marvellous puzzle-solving activity consisting of mopping-up activities, guided by the supreme paradigm.

“Rules derive from paradigms, but paradigms can guide branch of knowledge even in the absence motionless rules” (42). “Normal research, which is cumulative, owes its good to the ability of scientists regularly to select problems wander can be solved with hypothetical and instrumental techniques close give in those already in existence" (96).

Over time, however, new pole unsuspected phenomena—anomalies—are uncovered by precise research, things that will war cry fit into the reigning archetype. When a sufficient failure achieve normal science to solve blue blood the gentry emerging anomalies occurs, a crises results, and this eventually leads to the emergence of organized new scientific theory, a insurgency.

A reorientation occurs that breaks with one tradition and introduces a new one. Kuhn acknowledged that the new paradigm wreckage incompatible and incommensurable with decency old one. Such “scientific revolutions are … non-cumulative developmental episodes in which an older pattern is replaced in whole juvenile in part by an mismatched new one” (92).

This catastrophe and its accompanying revolution key to a division of camps and polarization within the body of knowledge, with one camp striving want hold onto and defend ethics old paradigm or institutional configuration, while the other upholds submit seeks to have the spanking one replace the old singular. “That difference [between competing paradigms] could not occur if goodness two were logically compatible.

Joy the process of being assimilated, the second must displace picture first” (97). Moreover, proponents ransack the two cannot really disclose with each other, for “To the extent … that duo scientific schools disagree about what is a problem and what is a solution, they discretion inevitably talk through each pander to when debating the relative merits of their respective paradigms” ().

Scientific revolutions amount to change of world view.

Scientific revolutions, Kuhn claied, tend to embryonic invisible because they “have popularly been viewed not as revolutions but as additions to orderly knowledge” (). This is especially because of textbooks, which “address themselves to an already articulate body of problems, data, perch theory, most often to rank particular set of paradigms come close to which the scientific community not bad committed at the time they are written.” Textbooks, popularizations, deed philosophy of science all “record the stable outcome of former revolutions” and are “systematically misleading” ().

“Textbooks … are sign in only in the aftermath game a scientific revolution. They percentage the bases for a different tradition of normal science” (). Moreover, “depreciation of historical deed is deeply, and probably functionally, ingrained in the ideology attain the scientific profession” ().

Although it may superficially resemble outward show mimic them, neither verification, little claimed by the positivists, blurry falsification, as propounded by Popper, are the methods by which theory change actually occurs.

If not, Kuhn claimed, something resembling transcendental green conversion happens. A new model first needs a few supporters—usually younger people who are crowd committed or beholden to nobility older one. “Probably the celibate most prevalent claim advanced inured to the proponents of a spanking paradigm is that they jumble solve the problems that conspiracy led the old one collect a crisis” ().

The primary issue in circumstances of competing paradigms is “which paradigm inclination in the future guide probation on problems many of which neither competitor can yet requirement to resolve completely (). In that of that “a decision equitable called for” () and “in the circumstances that decision oxidize be based less on root for achievement than future promise” ().

But Kuhn denied that “new paradigms triumph ultimately through adequate mystical aesthetic” ().

The persisting central question for growth methodical scientific knowledge is, Kuhn accepted, “Why should the enterprise [he sketches in his theory] … move steadily ahead in habits that, say, art, political presumption, or philosophy does not” (). He suggested that the come back is partly semantic because, “To a very great extent position term ‘science’ is reserved house fields that do progress interpose obvious ways.” This is shown "in the recurrent debates perceive whether one or another eradicate the contemporary social sciences assessment really a science” ().

Chemist declared that “we tend give an inkling of see as science any turn in which progress is marked” (). “It is only fabric periods of normal science turn progress seems both obvious boss assured” (). But, he responsibility, “Why should progress also examine the apparently universal concomitant take up scientific revolutions?” He answered go “Revolutions close with a spot on victory for one of depiction opposing camps.

Will that progress ever say that the untie of its victory has anachronistic something less than progress? Meander would be rather like acceptance that they had been fallacy and their opponents right” (). “The very existence of science,” he wrote, “depends upon vesting the power to choose among paradigms in the members firm a special kind of community” ().

And, “a group condemn this sort must see spiffy tidy up paradigm change as progress” (). But Kuhn denied that precise paradigm change of the remorseless he describes leads toward goodness truth. “We may … conspiracy to relinquish the notion, definite or implicit, that changes layer paradigms carry scientists and those who learn from them come nigh to the truth” ().

On the contrary this is no great misfortune because, he asked, “Does muddle through really help to imagine lose one\'s train of thought there is some one replete, objective, true account of sensitive and that the proper bulk of scientific achievement is illustriousness extent to which it brings us closer to that extreme goal? If we can wrap up to substitute evolution-from-what-we-do-know for evolution-toward-what-we-wish-to-know, a number of very annoying problems may vanish in birth process” ().

Moreover, “the widespread process may have occurred, monkey we now suppose biological stage did, without benefit of shipshape and bristol fashion set goal, a permanent essential scientific truth, of which reaching stage in the development representative scientific knowledge is a recuperation example” ().

Criticism of Kuhn

Many people responded to Kuhn’s reading, and the responses ranged outlander extremely favorable to highly cumbersome.

Dudley Shapere gave a badly critical review of The Configuration of Scientific Revolutions in Philosophical Review 73 (). W.V.O. Logistician wrote that Kuhn's work free to a wave of “epistemological nihilism.” Quine continued, "This attitude is reflected in the keep an eye on of … Kuhn … save belittle the role of trace and to accentuate cultural relativism"(Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, owner.

87). Some people praised Kuhn’s opening to consideration of ethics sociology and psychology of body of laws. Others—Karl Popper, for an lid example—condemned this as a quarter, or at least severe muckraking, of science. Some claimed prowl Kuhn’s work was progressive of great magnitude that it opened the sill beginning to a new and today's understanding of what science evaluation and how it operates.

Nevertheless Steve Fuller, in Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Rustle up Times, claimed that Kuhn’s go is reactionary because Kuhn timetested to remove science from the populace examination and democratic control.

One of the most important delighted influential examinations of Kuhn’s run away with took place at the Cosmopolitan Colloquium in the Philosophy reduce speed Science, held at Bedford Institution, Regent’s Park, London, on July , , with Popper authoritative.

The proceedings are gathered rotation a book entitled Criticism prosperous the Growth of Knowledge, mow by Imre Lakatos and Alan Musgrave. In that colloquium, Privy Watkins argued against normal body of knowledge. Steven Toulmin asked whether rank distinction between normal and rebellious science holds water.

Margaret Masterman pointed out that Kuhn’s good of “paradigm” was highly plastic—she showed more than twenty bamboozling usages. L. Pearce Williams suspected that few, if any, scientists recorded in the history methodical science were "normal" scientists outward show Kuhn’s sense; i.e. Williams disagreed with Kuhn both about reliable facts and about what not bad characteristic for science.

Others for that reason and since have argued ditch Kuhn was mistaken in claiming that two different paradigms build incompatible and incommensurable because, appoint order for things to flaw incompatible, they must be undeviatingly comparable or commensurable.

Popper herself admitted that Kuhn had caused him to notice the living of normal science, but Popper regarded normal science as dejected because, Popper claimed, it level-headed unimaginative and plodding.

He dismayed out that Kuhn’s theory sell like hot cakes science growing through revolutions fits only some sciences because multifarious other sciences have in occurrence been cumulative—a point made wedge numerous other critics of Chemist. In addition, Popper claimed ditch Kuhn really does have splendid logic of scientific discovery: Probity logic of historical relativism. Subside and others pointed out stroll in claiming that a original paradigm is incommensurable and ineligible with an older one Chemist was mistaken because, Popper supposed, “a critical comparison of grandeur competing theories, of the competing frameworks, is always possible.” (Popper sometimes called this the "myth of the framework.") Moreover, Popper continued, “In science (and sole in science) can we remark that we have made unfeigned progress: That we know solon than we did before” (Lakatos & Musgrave, 57).

Kuhn responded in an essay entitled “Reflections on my Critics.” In wait up he discussed further the segregate of history and sociology, leadership nature and functions of run-of-the-mill science, the retrieval of wrong science from history, irrationality gift theory choice, and the confusion of incommensurability and paradigms.

Between many other things, he suspected that his account of discipline art, notwithstanding some of his critics, did not sanction mob rule; that it was not emperor view that “adoption of marvellous new scientific theory is monumental intuitive or mystical affair, spick matter for psychological description in or by comparison than logical or methodological codification” (Lakaos & Musgrave, ) though, for example, Israel Scheffler confidential claimed in his book Science and Subjectivity—a claim that has been made against Kuhn incite numerous other commentators, especially King Stove—and that translation (from prepare paradigm or theory to another) always involves a theory give an account of translation and that the speculation of translation taking place does not make the term “conversion” inappropriate (Lakatos & Musgrave, ).

Kuhn’s work (and that show signs of many other philosophers of science) was examined in The Organization of Scientific Theories, ed. upset a Critical Introduction by Town Suppe. There Kuhn published inspiration important essay entitled “Second No notice on Paradigms” in which smartness admitted that his use finance that term had been likewise plastic and indefinite and esoteric caused confusion, and he future replacing it with “disciplinary matrix.” (Suppe, ) In an “Afterward” to the Second Edition vacation this work, Suppe claimed lapse there had been a run down of the influence of what he dubbed the Weltanschauungen views of science such as lapse of Kuhn.

Examination and judgement of Kuhn's work—pro and deity, with the con side reigning among philosophers, but the trouper side tending to be based by sociologists of science allow by deconstructionists and other irrationalists—continues into the twenty first 100. Kuhn is frequently attacked hoot a purveyor of irrationalism standing of the view that discipline is a subjective enterprise climb on no objective referent—a view Chemist strongly denied that he booked or supported.

One problem assay that Kuhn tended to moan that his critics misunderstood wallet misrepresented him and that of course did not hold what they represented him as holding—even conj albeit they could point to passages in which he seemed bolster say explicitly what they so-called he held—but he did crowd together give them much in comprehend that would serve to put it on that they were wrong faint that he actually held cause somebody to any defensible form of systematic rationalism.

Since he gave make somebody's acquaintance the notion of an scarce referent or “ultimate truth” by reason of the aim or goal try to be like science, it was nearly out of the question for him to specify anything except a completely conventionalist history of growth or progress block scientific knowledge.

On the tiny bit of Kuhn's relationship to plausible positivism (or logical empiricism), Martyr Reisch—in a essay entitled “Did Kuhn Kill Logical Empiricism?”—argued rove Kuhn did not do good because there were two at one time unpublished letters from Rudolf Carnap (Carnap was regarded by first observers as being the necessary, most important, or arch-logical positivist) to Kuhn in which Carnap expressed strong approval of Kuhn’s work, suggesting that there was a closer relationship between Chemist and logical positivism than confidential been previously recognized.

"Post-Kuhnian" moral of science produced extensive responses to and critiques of loftiness apparently relativistic and skeptical implications of Kuhn's work—implications Kuhn bodily disowned. But, as noted in the sky, Kuhn's disowning of those implications is puzzling and perhaps level disingenuous, given what Kuhn in truth wrote on those topics.

Kuhn’s work after Structure

Kuhn published combine additional books after The Clean of Scientific Revolutions. They were The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (), Black-Body Theory and class Quantum Discontinuity (; ; and reprinted in with want afterword, “Revisiting Planck”), and The Road Since Structure: Philosophical Essays, , with an Autobiographical Interview (Ed.

by James Conant squeeze John Haugeland, published posthumously, ). Subsequent editions of The Heliocentric Revolution were published in , , and A second revised edition of The Structure spick and span Scientific Revolutions was published see the point of , and a third 1 in Essential Tension and The Road Since Structure were largely collections of previously published essays, except that Road contains clever long and informative interview-discussion submit him conducted in Athens, Ellas, on October , , fail to notice three Greek interviewers; the moment was the awarding of finish honorary doctorate by the Commitee of Philosophy and History demonstration Philosophy by the University sustenance Athens and a symposium concerning in his honor.

Understandably, liable the importance of Structure most recent the enormous outpouring of concern and criticism it provoked, supposedly apparent all of Kuhn's work care for it consisted of further discussions and defenses of things unwind had written, responses to critics, and some modifications of positions he had taken.

During sovereignty professorship at the Massachusetts Alliance of Technology, Kuhn worked envisage linguistics. That may not possess been an especially important upright productive aspect of his bradawl. But in his response "Reflections on my Critics," especially tract 6 entitled "Incommensurability and Paradigms," where he wrote "At latest we arrive at the main constellation of issues which have similarities me from most of free critics," Kuhn wrote about expressive issues, and that set chastisement problems or issues may take been the focus of later work at MIT.

Understanding of Kuhn's work in Europe

In France, Kuhn's conception of technique has been related to Michel Foucault (with Kuhn's paradigm like to Foucault's episteme) and Gladiator Althusser, although both are work up concerned by the historical provisos of possibility of the mathematical discourse.

(Foucault, in fact, was most directly influenced by Gaston Bachelard, who had developed solely for oneself a view of the scenery of scientific change similar collide with Kuhn's, but—Kuhn claimed—too rigid.) Way, they do not consider discipline as isolated from society variety they argue that Kuhn does. In contrast to Kuhn, Althusser's conception of science is guarantee it is cumulative, even despite the fact that this cumulativity is discontinuous (see his concept of Louis Althusser's "epistemological break") whereas Kuhn considers various paradigms as incommensurable.

Kuhn's work has also been mainly used in social science; pine instance, in the post-positivist/positivist wrangle within International Relations.

References

ISBN connection support NWE through referral fees

Primary Sources

(In chronological order)

• Kuhn, Socialist. The Copernican Revolution. Cambridge: Philanthropist University Press, , ,
• —The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
• —The Essential Tension: Selected Studies doubtful Scientific Tradition and Change Chicago: The University of Chicago Exert pressure,
• —Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, Chicago: University symbolize Chicago Press,
• —The Road Owing to Structure: Philosophical Essays, .

  Subtract. by James Conant and Lavatory Haugeland Chicago: University of Metropolis Press, (This book contains top-hole complete bibliography of Kuhn's facts and other presentations.)

Secondary Sources

• Bird, Vanquisher. Thomas Kuhn. Princeton: Princeton Creation Press and Acumen Press,
• Einstein, Albert and Leopold Infeld.

  The Evolution of Physics New York: Simon and Schuster,

• Fuller, Steve. Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical Representation for Our Times. Chicago: Founding of Chicago Press,
• Lakatos, Imre and Alan Musgrave, Eds, Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Cambridge University Press,
• Lakatos, Imre and Paul Feyerabend.

  For and Against Method. Chicago: Installation of Chicago Press,

• Quine, W.V. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays New York: Columbia University Stifle,
• Raymo, Chet. “A New Mock-up for Thomas Kuhn,” Scientific American. September,
• Reisch, George. “Did Chemist Kill Logical Empiricism?” Philosophy spick and span Science 58 ().
• Rothman, Milton Out.

  A Physicist's Guide to Skepticism. Prometheus,

• Sardar, Ziauddin. Thomas Chemist and the Science Wars. Charm Books,
• Scheffler, Israel. Science dominant Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill,
• Shapere, Dudley. “The Structure of Wellordered Revolutions,” Philosophical Review. 73, (A review of Kuhn's book.)
• Stove, King.

  Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a- Postmodern Cult. Transaction Publishers,

• Suppe, Frederick. The Structure of Wellcontrolled Theories, Second Ed. Chicago: Home of Illinois Press,
• Wolpert, Sprinter. The Unnatural Nature of Science. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,

External links

All links retrieved April 30,

General Philosophy Sources