Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁
Identifieur interne : 001203 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001202; suivant : 001204Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁
Auteurs : LeinkaufSource :
- Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte [ 0170-6233 ] ; 2000.
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.
Url:
DOI: 10.1002/bewi.20000230402
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6ALe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="de">Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁</title><author><name sortKey="Leinkauf" sort="Leinkauf" uniqKey="Leinkauf" last="Leinkauf">Leinkauf</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Westfälische Wilhelms‐Universität, Phiolosophisches Seminar, Domplatz 23, D‐48 143 Münster</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A</idno><date when="2000" year="2000">2000</date><idno type="doi">10.1002/bewi.20000230402</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001203</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="de">Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁</title><author><name sortKey="Leinkauf" sort="Leinkauf" uniqKey="Leinkauf" last="Leinkauf">Leinkauf</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Westfälische Wilhelms‐Universität, Phiolosophisches Seminar, Domplatz 23, D‐48 143 Münster</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch.</title><idno type="ISSN">0170-6233</idno><idno type="eISSN">1522-2365</idno><imprint><publisher>WILEY‐VCH Verlag</publisher><pubPlace>Weinheim</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000">2000</date><biblScope unit="volume">23</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="399">399</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="418">418</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0170-6233</idno></series><idno type="istex">C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/bewi.20000230402</idno><idno type="ArticleID">BEWI20000230402</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0170-6233</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="de">de</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">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.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>wiley</corpusName><author><json:item><name>Prof. Dr. Leinkauf</name><affiliations><json:string>Westfälische Wilhelms‐Universität, Phiolosophisches Seminar, Domplatz 23, D‐48 143 Münster</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>Bewegung</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>Dynamik</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>Einzelseiendes</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>forma substantialis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>Funktion</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>Kraft (vis virtus)</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>Mechanik</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>natura naturans</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>quantitativ/qualitativ</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>res extensa</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>Prozeß</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>Wissen (proportional)</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>Wissen (intuitiv)</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>ger</json:string></lang><value>XVII Jh.</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>BEWI20000230402</json:string></articleId><language><json:string>ger</json:string></language><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.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>8</score><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>468 x 684 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><keywordCount>14</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>1625</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>10877</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>69887</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>20</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>263</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁</title><genre><json:string>article</json:string></genre><host><volume>23</volume><publisherId><json:string>BEWI</json:string></publisherId><pages><total>20</total><last>418</last><first>399</first></pages><issn><json:string>0170-6233</json:string></issn><issue>4</issue><subject><json:item><value>Freie Beiträge</value></json:item></subject><genre><json:string>Journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1522-2365</json:string></eissn><title>Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte</title><doi><json:string>10.1002/(ISSN)1522-2365</json:string></doi></host><publicationDate>2000</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2000</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1002/bewi.20000230402</json:string></doi><id>C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A</id><fulltext><json:item><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><extension>pdf</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><extension>zip</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="de">Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>WILEY‐VCH Verlag</publisher><pubPlace>Weinheim</pubPlace><availability><p>WILEY</p></availability><date>2000</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="content">*Dieser Beitrag basiert auf einem Vortrag, gehalten auf dem 10. Wolfenbütteler Barockkongreß „Artes et scientiae. Repräsentationen neuer und alter Sichtweisen von ‚Natur’︁ in der Frühen Neuzeit”︁, der vom 5.‐8. April 2000 in der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel stattgefunden hat.</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="de">Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁</title><author><persName><surname>Leinkauf</surname></persName><roleName type="degree">Prof. Dr.</roleName><affiliation>Westfälische Wilhelms‐Universität, Phiolosophisches Seminar, Domplatz 23, D‐48 143 Münster</affiliation></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch.</title><idno type="pISSN">0170-6233</idno><idno type="eISSN">1522-2365</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1522-2365</idno><imprint><publisher>WILEY‐VCH Verlag</publisher><pubPlace>Weinheim</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2000"></date><biblScope unit="volume">23</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="399">399</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="418">418</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1002/bewi.20000230402</idno><idno type="ArticleID">BEWI20000230402</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2000</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="de">de</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>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.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="de"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Keywords</head><item><term>Bewegung</term></item><item><term>Dynamik</term></item><item><term>Einzelseiendes</term></item><item><term>forma substantialis</term></item><item><term>Funktion</term></item><item><term>Kraft (vis virtus)</term></item><item><term>Mechanik</term></item><item><term>natura naturans</term></item><item><term>quantitativ/qualitativ</term></item><item><term>res extensa</term></item><item><term>Prozeß</term></item><item><term>Wissen (proportional)</term></item><item><term>Wissen (intuitiv)</term></item><item><term>XVII Jh.</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head>article category</head><item><term>Freie Beiträge</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2000">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><extension>txt</extension><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="Wiley, elements deleted: body"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:document><component version="2.0" type="serialArticle" xml:lang="en"><header><publicationMeta level="product"><publisherInfo><publisherName>WILEY‐VCH Verlag</publisherName><publisherLoc>Weinheim</publisherLoc></publisherInfo><doi registered="yes">10.1002/(ISSN)1522-2365</doi><issn type="print">0170-6233</issn><issn type="electronic">1522-2365</issn><idGroup><id type="product" value="BEWI"></id></idGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="de" sort="BERICHTE ZUR WISSENSCHAFTSGESCHICHTE">Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte</title><title type="short">Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch.</title></titleGroup></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="part" position="40"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/bewi.v23:4</doi><numberingGroup><numbering type="journalVolume" number="23">23</numbering><numbering type="journalIssue">4</numbering></numberingGroup><coverDate startDate="2000">2000</coverDate></publicationMeta><publicationMeta level="unit" type="article" position="2" status="forIssue"><doi origin="wiley" registered="yes">10.1002/bewi.20000230402</doi><idGroup><id type="unit" value="BEWI20000230402"></id></idGroup><countGroup><count type="pageTotal" number="20"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="articleCategory">Freie Beiträge</title><title type="tocHeading1">Freie Beiträge</title></titleGroup><copyright ownership="publisher">Copyright © 2000 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim</copyright><eventGroup><event type="firstOnline" date="2006-09-27"></event><event type="publishedOnlineFinalForm" date="2006-09-27"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:JWSART34_TO_WML3G version:2.3.2 mode:FullText source:HeaderRef result:HeaderRef" date="2010-03-09"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WILEY_ML3G_TO_WILEY_ML3GV2 version:3.8.8" date="2014-02-22"></event><event type="xmlConverted" agent="Converter:WML3G_To_WML3G version:4.1.7 mode:FullText,remove_FC" date="2014-10-15"></event></eventGroup><numberingGroup><numbering type="pageFirst">399</numbering><numbering type="pageLast">418</numbering></numberingGroup><linkGroup><link type="toTypesetVersion" href="file:BEWI.BEWI20000230402.pdf"></link></linkGroup></publicationMeta><contentMeta><countGroup><count type="figureTotal" number="0"></count><count type="tableTotal" number="0"></count><count type="referenceTotal" number="79"></count></countGroup><titleGroup><title type="main" xml:lang="de">Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁<link href="#fn1"></link></title></titleGroup><creators><creator xml:id="au1" creatorRole="author" affiliationRef="#af1"><personName><honorifics>Prof. Dr.</honorifics><givenNames>Thomas</givenNames><familyName>Leinkauf</familyName></personName></creator></creators><affiliationGroup><affiliation xml:id="af1" countryCode="DE" type="organization"><unparsedAffiliation>Westfälische Wilhelms‐Universität, Phiolosophisches Seminar, Domplatz 23, D‐48 143 Münster</unparsedAffiliation></affiliation></affiliationGroup><keywordGroup xml:lang="de" type="author"><keyword xml:id="kwd1">Bewegung</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd2">Dynamik</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd3">Einzelseiendes</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd4"><i>forma substantialis</i></keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd5">Funktion</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd6">Kraft (vis virtus)</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd7">Mechanik</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd8"><i>natura naturans</i></keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd9">quantitativ/qualitativ</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd10"><i>res extensa</i></keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd11">Prozeß</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd12">Wissen (proportional)</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd13">Wissen (intuitiv)</keyword><keyword xml:id="kwd14">XVII Jh.</keyword></keywordGroup><abstractGroup><abstract type="main" xml:lang="en"><title type="main">Abstract</title><p>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 <i>res extensa</i> and <i>intima rerum</i> ‐ 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 <i>res extensa</i> and <i>intima rerum</i> 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 <i>intima rerum</i>‐position, can, for example, be seen as having been influenced by the mechanistic, or <i>res extensa</i>‐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 <i>intima rerum</i>, at least partly or in a modified manner.</p></abstract></abstractGroup></contentMeta><noteGroup><note xml:id="fn1"><p>Dieser Beitrag basiert auf einem Vortrag, gehalten auf dem 10. Wolfenbütteler Barockkongreß „<i>Artes et scientiae. Repräsentationen neuer und alter Sichtweisen von ‚Natur’︁ in der Frühen Neuzeit”︁</i>, der vom 5.‐8. April 2000 in der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel stattgefunden hat.</p></note></noteGroup></header></component></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="de"><title>Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="de"><title>Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="termsOfAddress">Prof. Dr.</namePart><namePart type="family">Leinkauf</namePart><affiliation>Westfälische Wilhelms‐Universität, Phiolosophisches Seminar, Domplatz 23, D‐48 143 Münster</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="article" displayLabel="article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>WILEY‐VCH Verlag</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Weinheim</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2000</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2000</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">de</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">ger</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType><extent unit="references">79</extent></physicalDescription><abstract lang="en">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.</abstract><note type="content">*Dieser Beitrag basiert auf einem Vortrag, gehalten auf dem 10. Wolfenbütteler Barockkongreß „Artes et scientiae. Repräsentationen neuer und alter Sichtweisen von ‚Natur’︁ in der Frühen Neuzeit”︁, der vom 5.‐8. April 2000 in der Herzog August Bibliothek Wolfenbüttel stattgefunden hat.</note><subject lang="de"><genre>Keywords</genre><topic>Bewegung</topic><topic>Dynamik</topic><topic>Einzelseiendes</topic><topic>forma substantialis</topic><topic>Funktion</topic><topic>Kraft (vis virtus)</topic><topic>Mechanik</topic><topic>natura naturans</topic><topic>quantitativ/qualitativ</topic><topic>res extensa</topic><topic>Prozeß</topic><topic>Wissen (proportional)</topic><topic>Wissen (intuitiv)</topic><topic>XVII Jh.</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Ber. Wissenschaftsgesch.</title></titleInfo><genre type="Journal">journal</genre><subject><genre>article category</genre><topic>Freie Beiträge</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0170-6233</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1522-2365</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/(ISSN)1522-2365</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">BEWI</identifier><part><date>2000</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>23</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>399</start><end>418</end><total>20</total></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1002/bewi.20000230402</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">BEWI20000230402</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Copyright © 2000 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>WILEY</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>WILEY‐VCH Verlag</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/OperaV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001203 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001203 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Musique
|area= OperaV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:C9EAD25CA6BFCC8532056A69CC813246E5F3FE6A
|texte= Der Natur‐Begriff des 17. Jahrhunderts und zwei seiner Inter‐pretamente: „res extensa”︁ und „intima rerum”︁
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.21. |  |