"Time and Transcendence" provides a new theory of secularization in the Catholic context, a new interpretation of the origins of modern historical science, and a new reading of Heidegger's theories of time and history. The author shows how a secular sense of the past evolved in early modern French memoirs. Memoirs uncovered a level of personal experience that was then applied as an intuitive framework for the study of history. Modern history's scientific study of sources is embedded in the imaginative sense of a personal past. 19th-century French Traditionalists countered this threat of a secular past by expanding the concept of tradition to include all of history. Neoscholasticism then canonized philosophy as Catholic tradition, turning the history of philosophy against secular culture. Heidegger's thinking developed in the contexts of both this Catholic counterattack and the "fin-de-siecle" disillusion with secular history. Against "fin-de-siecle" notions of memory as a better way of penetrating the past, Heidegger recast history as future-oriented action. Rejecting both secular culture and religious tradition, he used history as a tool for secularizing religious experiences that secular culture had ignored, such as grace, mystical experience, and death. This book shows that while religion can turn a self-conscious secular culture against itself, ultimately the religious critique of secular culture can also be turned against religion.

This book comprises 14 essays by scholars who disagree about the methods and purposes of comparing Nazism and Communism. The central idea is that if these two different memories of evil were to develop in isolation, their competition for significance would distort the real evils both movements propagated. Whilst many reject this comparison because they feel it could relativize the evil of one of these movements, the claim that a political movement is uniquely evil can only be made by comparing it to another movement. How do these issues affect postwar interrelations between memory and history? Are there tensions between the ways postwar societies remember these atrocities, and the ways in which intellectuals and scholars reconstruct what happened? Nazism and Communism have been constantly compared since the 1920s. A sense of the ways in which these comparisons have been used and abused by both Right and Left belongs to our common history. These twentieth century evils invite comparison, if only because of their traumatic effects. We have an obligation to understand what happened, and we also have an obligation to understand how we have dealt with it.

This book comprises 14 essays by scholars who disagree about the methods and purposes of comparing Nazism and Communism. The central idea is that if these two different memories of evil were to develop in isolation, their competition for significance would distort the real evils both movements propagated. Whilst many reject this comparison because they feel it could relativize the evil of one of these movements, the claim that a political movement is uniquely evil can only be made by comparing it to another movement. How do these issues affect postwar interrelations between memory and history? Are there tensions between the ways postwar societies remember these atrocities, and the ways in which intellectuals and scholars reconstruct what happened? Nazism and Communism have been constantly compared since the 1920s. A sense of the ways in which these comparisons have been used and abused by both Right and Left belongs to our common history. These twentieth century evils invite comparison, if only because of their traumatic effects. We have an obligation to understand what happened, and we also have an obligation to understand how we have dealt with it.

Polish Solidarity was a phenomenon combining a trade union, a social movement and general ideas of freedom and solidarity. Led by Lech Walesa it contributed greatly to the evolution of the old system and to its final collapse in 1989, followed then by the end of the communist regimes in all of Central Europe. Today we celebrate the 25th anniversary of these peaceful revolutions. What is left of Solidarity? What is still important? How did it evolve and how did it contribute to the collapse of the old system, and to the building of the new? These are the questions the authors, leading specialists on social movements, institutions, structures and social change address in this book.

A reappraisal of Lamarckism-its historical impact and contemporary significance.In 1809-the year of Charles Darwin's birth-Jean-Baptiste Lamarck published Philosophie zoologique, the first comprehensive and systematic theory of biological evolution. The Lamarckian approach emphasizes the generation of developmental variations; Darwinism stresses selection. Lamarck's ideas were eventually eclipsed by Darwinian concepts, especially after the emergence of the Modern Synthesis in the twentieth century. The different approaches-which can be seen as complementary rather than mutually exclusive-have important implications for the kinds of questions biologists ask and for the type of research they conduct. Lamarckism has been evolving-or, in Lamarckian terminology, transforming-since Philosophie zoologique's description of biological processes mediated by "subtle fluids." Essays in this book focus on new developments in biology that make Lamarck's ideas relevant not only to modern empirical and theoretical research but also to problems in the philosophy of biology. Contributors discuss the historical transformations of Lamarckism from the 1820s to the 1940s, and the different understandings of Lamarck and Lamarckism; the Modern Synthesis and its emphasis on Mendelian genetics; theoretical and experimental research on such "Lamarckian" topics as plasticity, soft (epigenetic) inheritance, and individuality; and the importance of a developmental approach to evolution in the philosophy of biology. The book shows the advantages of a "Lamarckian" perspective on evolution. Indeed, the development-oriented approach it presents is becoming central to current evolutionary studies-as can be seen in the burgeoning field of Evo-Devo. Transformations of Lamarckism makes a unique contribution to this research.