446 Notes to Pages 85—89
reintroduced during the 1760s and 1770s. Aristotelian terminology did not need
to be revived, as it had never been abandoned,
in. Göttingen was constituted in 1736-37.- Cassirer's claim that among Kant's teachers "Knutzen alone represented the
European ideal of universal science" is historical nonsense (Cassirer, Life, 25).
Teske and others represented that ideal just as much, or just as little. It is per¬
haps more significant that they discussed all the different ideas that contributed
to this European ideal. However, the Pietists in Königsberg, including Knutzen,
did not represent the ideal of universal science. - Borowski, Leben, p. 92.
- Ibid. (Borowski probably knew what he was talking about, since he must have
attended Teske's lectures.) - Ak 1, pp. 5f., 7.
- Ak i, pp. 3of.
- Knutzen's name appears only in Kant's correspondence — in a letter of applica¬
tion for Knutzen's position. - Ak 1, p. io.
- Aki,p. 13.
- Ak 1, p. 10.
- The degree of Magister is roughly equivalent to today's Ph.D.
- Vorländer, Immanuel Kant, I, p. 63, asks a similar question, but to my mind takes
the easy way out, saying that it was because his friend had left, and that it was
rather typical for young academics to take this route. - Borowski, Leben, p. 92.
- It is indeed interesting to compare the passages on Schulz and Knutzen in Borow-
ski's biography that Kant could have read (Borowski, Leben, pp. 37, 39f.) and the
passages that Kant did not read (Borowski, Leben, pp. 83, 92). In the passages
Kant did not read, the relationship between Knutzen and Kant is characterized
as being much warmer and closer. - Ak 1, p. 3O9n. He belongs to the "Metaphysikkundigeren," but not to the "Metaphy¬
sikkundigen." Compare Waschkies, Physik und Physikotheologie, pp. 46 m., 4Ö2f. - Waschkies, Physik und Physikotheologie, p. 20n.
- The claim that Kant did not study theology "because he was opposed to Pietism"
is from Reicke, Kantiana, p. 7. - It is often claimed that D'Alembert tried to show in his Essai de dynamique of 1743
that the different parties were just fighting about words, but Carolyn Iltis, in
"D'Alembert and the Vis Viva Controversy," Studies in History and Philosophy
of Science 1 (1970), pp. 135-44, claims that he did this only in the 1758 edition.
Precedents for the distinction between change in momentum and force acting in
a given time can, however, be found in Boscovich and in Clarke's fifth reply to
Leibniz. (I am thankful to Martin Curd for pointing this out.) - See also Larry Laudan, "The Vis Viva Controversy, a Post-Mortem," Isis 59
(1968), pp. 131-143. Laudan refers to Euler's "De la force de percussion et sa
veritable mesure," in Memoires de l'Academie Royale des Sciences et des Belles Lettres
de Berlin, Annee 1745 (Berlin: Haude, 1746), pp. 27-33, as Euler's contribution
to this dispute.