Добірка наукової літератури з теми "Architecture, Modern Philosophy"

The paper focuses on the new field of philosophy of architecture in analytic tradition. The research presented in this paper is part of an ongoing doctoral research concerning the connection between ethics and aesthetics in architecture. The connection between architecture and philosophy is not a novelty. Architectural theory has always looked up to philosophy for inspiration but only recently philosophers have started to study architecture in detail. Architectural theory is still a field that is in search of a better conceptual frame after the failure of the theoretical premises of the Modern Movement and the rise of the "theory speak". Architecture's features as a public art ask for a certain amount of objectivity. The philosophy of architecture in analytic tradition can contribute to a more objective conceptual frame. The principal concerns are familiar to those acquainted with continental philosophy: What makes architecture special among the arts? What is the essence of an architectural work? How we can better define architecture's social mission? But the way of answering them is different. The ethical dimension of architecture is one of the most debated subjects among architects in recent years. There are several contributions on the connection between ethics and aesthetics in the philosophy of architecture in analytic tradition. They have the potential to have an impact on architectural theory and practice.

Technology is an indispensable aspect of architecture. In fact, it is being an essential part of the human effort in making architecture. Since the early modern era, technology that rapidly change has been seen as the sign of progress, not only pertaining to the technology itself, but also architecture and even civilization. Modern architectural theoreticians, from Sant’Elia to Le Corbusier, enthusiastically embraced the progressive side of technology and engineering. Philosophically, however, modern technology is regarded pessimistically. Heidegger and Jaspers considered technology as the source of alienation to the human being themselves and to the reality they face. To overcome this gap, Alan Drengson, proposed the four philosophy of technology to rechart the variety of tendency towards technology in Western society, consisting of (1) technological anarchy, (2) technophilia, (3) technophobia, and (4) technological appropriateness. In this explanation, he coined the terms “creative philosophy” to include many aspects and ways of thinking which might be incorporated in the creative activities like architectural design. This paper attempts to evaluate the appropriatenes of Drengson’s philosophical scheme as a platform for architectural education in Indonesia in general, by relating his framework with the architectural theories and practices in Indonesia. The result of this effort is while the formulation of his scheme is the very inclusive and closely related with creative activity like architectural design, it contains bias of industrial technology appearing in the Asian scene brought by Western European colonials. Discussing philosophy underlying Gandhi’s movement in India to reject oppressive technology, we may arrive at the conclusion that the philosopy of non-violence, truth and justice based on the principle of self restrained are relevant to figure out the ideal of appropriate technology in Asia.

It is known that traditional architectures are a product of human conception full of culture and philosophy, while modern architectural concepts prioritize functionality and simplicity that tends to be simple or quick. Now the architectural concept slowly changes according to the conditions of time, then so is the existence of works of architecture that also changes. This condition can be found in almost major cities in Indonesia, where many houses or buildings built still in traditional architecture theme but combined and matched with modern architecture concept. One of many diverse cultures of Indonesia archipelago architecture that has evolved is West Java. There are a lot of people trying to apply the concept of Sundanese traditional house in their residence. Shifting sacred values in traditional concept seems indeed to be lost along with the differences in modern human civilization.

The Arab architectural identity is characterized by the originality of the various Arab cultures. Islamic culture is what makes Arab societies unique and it is what inspired Arab architecture. Consequently, the Arab architecture encounters contemporary challenges. If modern architectural trends influenced Arab civilization, it could then obliterate its identity over the years. Moreover, positively interacting with modern architectural trends must take place rather than negative interactions. The aforementioned reasons leave this phenomenon the subject of discussion and research and thus the lack of update and development of the vocabulary of Arab architecture. The proposed study discusses the problem of the correlation of deconstructive architecture with the architectural and Arabic identity through the end of the 20th century until 2017. In order to arrive at the definition of the philosophy of deconstruction architecture and the appropriate relationship between it and the Arab architectural identity, the study utilizes a qualitative descriptive methodology that tries to give a generic image of philosophy and characteristics. Deconstruction architecture attempts to link the positive aspects of architecture and Arab identity through the analysis of the frameworks of this philosophy of particular architectural works of various architects who adopt this philosophy of architecture. Responding to the above, the current study shows that it is better to strip the modern trends and take what suits the Arab culture.

In the debate "Architecture and Philosophy / the relations, potentialities and critical points" the notions of "philosophy of architecture" and "aesthetics of architecture" will be discussed. The differences between traditional and contemporary philosophy and aesthetics of architecture will be introduced. In a separate sub-chapter the status of "theory" and "theorizing" during the times of late modernism and postmodern culture will be discussed. It has been pointed to the modalities of theory outside philosophy and aesthetics. The discourses from philosophy, humanities, free theorizing and architectural theories are brought closer together. In the final sub-chapter the status of contemporary philosophy and cotemporary architecture have been discussed. The notion of contemporaneity has been particularly elaborated. The central thesis of this paper is the relation of architecture and philosophy, i.e. the theory constituent for modern, postmodern and contemporary architecture. The derived thesis of the discussion is that critical theory of architecture and architectural yearning for "critical architecture" have acquired exceptional significance at the time of global conflicts and, presently at the time of global economic crisis. The theoretical, aesthetic and philosophical attention has essentially been shifted from the immanent questions about architecture (form, function, spectacularity) to the external i.e. transcendental questions about the culture and society, i.e. about the economy, power, governance, supervision, forms of life, flexibility of architectural production, exchange and consumption.

Abstract The basis of the connection between analytic philosophy and architecture theory was developed in the interwar period. The results of analytic philosophy – especially the neo-positivism of Vienna Circle – and modern, functionalist architecture theory were utilized in an interdisciplinary approach. The comparison was based on language puzzles, science-based building processes, the method of justification and verification, and designing an artificial language in order to express the theoretical (philosophical) and the practical (architectural) approach as well. The functionality was based on the modern way of architectural thinking that relied on the results of Carnapian neo-positivism. Interpreting modern architecture is possible by referring to the keywords of logical positivism: empiricism, logic, verification, unity of language, and science. In my paper, I first list the bases of the comparison between the philosophy of the Vienna Circle and the architecture theory of the interwar period – the Bauhaus and Le Corbusier. In the 2nd and 3rd sections, I show the dialectical succession between form and function. After that, I discuss the aesthetic verification of the turn of the century and the scientific justification of the interwar period. I focus on the interwar period with the positivist approach and the theory of the ‘new architecture’. I emphasize the importance of the language of science and the machine paradigm – in contrast to historicism.

The classical architecture is being constantly developed in time, and, consequently, is relevant nowadays. The paper deals with the development of classical architectural in antiquity up to the present time. This is necessary for further study of modern architecture. The aim of this work is to identify the most stable formation of the classical antique architecture. Scientific novelty lies in the systematic approach to the studying the evolution of ancient architectural theory, taking into account a variety of external factors and based on ancient philosophy. The main level of scientific knowledge is a theoretical (historical) method, which involves a study of graphic and textual information covering the era as well as a systematic analysis of the material for the identification of basic principles of the antique architecture. It is shown that the main principles of the antique architecture are being developed in a close connection with philosophy, and determine the further development of the classical direction in architecture.

Includes bibliography. This thesis examines deconstructive writings, employing those strategies as a basis for re-forming approaches to architecture. A theory is posited that a distinction must be made between architecture as idiom and architecture as medium, expressed as a separation between architecture as a built form, Architecture the Idea and A(a)rchitecture as a new direction for framing an approach to its discourse.

Le sujet de la thèse —la clarification du concept de plan libre dans l’œuvre architectural de Le Corbusier— s’inscrit dans un cadre général de recherches portant sur les modes de conception architecturale en contexte de modernité. Cette préoccupation prend comme horizon la compréhension des processus qui servent l’architecture comme construction d’idées et qui permettent d’en articuler les différentes phases, depuis l’amont des intentions exprimées par le concepteur, jusqu’à l’aval des expressions prises par la solution, en passant par les moyens qui, précisément, permettent d’articuler une pensée abstraite à un objet concret. C’est un champ d’interrogation qui s’appuie sur le constat d’un double déficit disciplinaire :l’intérêt général porté aux formes de l’architecture plutôt qu’aux processus qui les ont fait naître ;l’absence de vocabulaire réellement partagé des concepts utilisés par la discipline, ce qui forme, dans l’un et l’autre cas, “obstacles” à la connaissance de l’architecture et à son enseignement.

A cet égard, le concept de plan libre occupe une position de choix. Célèbre « mot-force » du manifeste corbuséen de 1927 —« Les Cinq points d’une nouvelle architecture »—, devenu un concept central —mais aussi “nomade”— de l’historiographie de l’architecture moderne, il se trouve donc à l’articulation des questions relatives à la modernité et à la conception. De plus, une simple confrontation de sa définition originale, tant à l’œuvre de Le Corbusier qu’à l’historiographie du Mouvement Moderne, révèle la polysémie du concept et, en particulier, les ambiguïtés et paradoxes que suscitent sa double interprétation :comme “modèle d’organisation spatiale” d’une part et comme “intention libératoire” de l’autre, au point qu’elle laisse le chercheur perplexe à l’égard de ce qu’en l’état, un tel concept peut bien apporter à la connaissance de l’architecture.

Pour surmonter ces difficultés d’interprétations, deux hypothèses sont proposées.

La première envisage le plan libre comme mode opératoire de “libre” conception propre à Le Corbusier. La seconde renvoie à la construction discursive du plan libre comme oxymore, c’est-à-dire comme figure de rhétorique qui, en associant deux termes de sens contraires, construit un ou plusieurs sens nouveaux.

En conclusion, leur vérification conduit à interpréter le plan libre comme mode spécifique de conception —qui assure tout autant l’autonomie du créateur que la fertilité du processus de création—, lui-même basé sur un processus récurrent de “mises en tension” et de recherches de nouveaux “équilibres” :du regard dialogique que Le Corbusier porte sur le monde —en particulier sur le processus de modernisation— à l’expression duale qu’il donne à ses compositions. Au final, cette double optique fonde notre interprétation du plan libre comme syncrétisme de la modernité corbuséenne. Elle se valide également comme clés de lecture particulièrement riches pour la compréhension de l’oeuvre corbuséenne et des processus de conception qui l’animent.

x x x

Développement

Tout au long des chapitres de l’étude, nous nous sommes attaché à interroger le concept de plan libre au-delà des compréhensions conventionnelles et “familières” qu’on pouvait en avoir de prime abord, à savoir :d’une part, le plan libre comme “modèle d’organisation spatiale” —défini par opposition au “plan paralysé”—et, d’autre part, le plan libre comme “intention libératoire”, lequel marque un large désir d’émancipation, en particulier —sans y être restreint— à l’égard des pratiques académiques. Dès le premier chapitre en effet, nous avions montré que ces premières définitions “communes” du plan libre —clairement identifiables tant dans l’œuvre corbuséenne que dans les instrumentalisations dont il fut l’objet par la critique spécialisée— formaient “obstacles”, dans ces deux champs, à une claire compréhension de ce qu’il pouvait signifier.

Bien que l’on ne puisse douter de la validité des définitions proposées par Le Corbusier lui-même, nous avons dû relever à leur égard un certain nombre d’ambiguïtés ou de contresens qui nous obligeaient à questionner ces termes au-delà de ce qu’on y voit habituellement. De la sorte, nous mettions aussi en évidence qu’il n’y avait pas, dans le concept de plan libre, un, mais bien deux “niveaux de libération” à identifier :d’une part, un mouvement d’émancipation de la nouvelle architecture à l’égard de tout ce qui pouvait, de manière hétéronome, “préformer” sa conception ;d’autre part, une liberté interne au système mis en place, assurant à l’auteur de projet la mise à disposition de moyens innovants et permettant la « permanente mise à l’épreuve » (A. Rivkin) de l’architecture face aux conditions changeantes du projet.

Ces différentes observations nous invitaient à approfondir la réflexion et, surtout, à la déplacer vers ce processus qui, justement, permettait de lier la “virtualité” de l’intention à la “matérialité” d’une solution, soit le propre de la conception architecturale. En effet, entre ces premières définitions du plan libre qui, déjà, le situaient aux “extrêmes” de la conception architecturale — intention versus expression— il semblait opportun d’en revenir là aussi à l’investigation de cette problématique “intermédiaire” :par quels moyens Le Corbusier passait-il du plan libre comme intention au plan libre comme expression ?

L’hypothèse fut alors posée de considérer le plan libre corbuséen comme “méta-opérateur” d’une libre conception du projet, le terme désignant selon Robert Prost « l’ensemble des modes opératoires que réclame toute formulation de solution ». Dans ce sens, on pouvait aisément présumer que ce mode de conception était lui-même animé par le regard doctrinal porté par Le Corbusier sur cette même modernité au service de laquelle il avait précisément défini la « nouvelle architecture » et les « Cinq points » qui en étaient « les moyens ».

L’objectif de nos développements ultérieurs fut dès lors, tout à la fois, de montrer ce “statut” opératoire du plan libre comme libre conception; de déterminer les moyens —procéduraux et substantiels— qui l’organisaient ;de montrer ce qu’ils construisaient dans l’œuvre en termes d’innovation ;de relever, en parallèle, en quoi et comment ils étaient révélateurs du point de vue de Le Corbusier sur la modernité.

Les hypothèses et l’intérêt des questions soulevées furent définitivement fondés après l’exposé des cadres généraux à l’intérieur desquels elles devaient être discutées :les champs de la conception d’une part et de la modernité de l’autre. C’est l’objet du chapitre 2.

L’étude s’est alors développée en quatre parties, basées sur des temporalités et/ou des corpus spécifiques et orientées vers des questions particulières.

Dans un premier temps —chapitre 3—, nous avons pris comme cadre d’interrogation l’exposition du Weissenhof à Stuttgart en 1927, moment de la publication du célèbre manifeste corbuséen des « Cinq points d’une nouvelle architecture » et lieu de la construction de ces maisons par lesquelles Le Corbusier exposa concrètement ses points de vue théoriques.

Le concept de plan libre y a été évalué à l’aune :des Cinq points dans le cadre desquels il a été énoncé; de l’ossature Dom-Ino qui en fonde l’émergence et la nature particulière; des maisons du Weissenhof qui en concrétisent la portée et les ambitions. Bien que cette matière ait déjà été abondamment retournée par les labours de la critique architecturale, un exposé exhaustif se devait d’être fait pour fonder notre propre compréhension des événements, construire nos propres observations et conclusions, eu égard à nos hypothèses. Par ailleurs, ce chapitre a permis d’éclaircir le mode de fonctionnement des Cinq points et de l’ossature Dom-Ino quant à leurs rôles et objectifs dans le processus de conception corbuséen.

Dans le 4e chapitre, nous nous sommes plus particulièrement interrogé sur ce qui fondait le choix et la définition de ces moyens particuliers. Il fut donc consacré à l’étude du plan libre comme édification d’une “théorie” du projet. Jamais Le Corbusier n’a produit un discours coordonné sur sa pratique —à la manière du traité d’Alberti— et les nombreux textes par lesquels il commente son œuvre et justifie les Cinq points comme « Eléments objectifs de discussion sur le phénomène architectural » présentent ces questions selon des points de vue fragmentaires :seul l’enchaînement des sources a permis d’extraire des thèmes dont la récurrence, voire la redondance, fait sens. La variation des énoncés des Cinq points que nous avons pu relever invitait par ailleurs à voir là une pensée en “construction” plutôt qu’une doctrine “arrêtée”, le manifeste étant dès lors compris comme un “arrêt sur images” ponctuant le parcours d’une pensée elle-même en permanente évolution.

Le corpus de cette analyse fut constitué de conférences, articles et livres rédigés par Le Corbusier, pour l’essentiel entre 1918 et la fin des années 20. Sur base de ce matériel, un certain nombre de thèmes récurrents ont été identifiés qui étayent la compréhension de ce que peuvent être les éléments de doctrine qui sous-tendent la conception du projet corbuséen et la manière dont il construit la validation de son propos. L’intérêt de cet examen fut aussi de permettre l’identification de quelques-unes de ces références procédurales qui font partie du fond culturel du concepteur et par lesquelles Le Corbusier organise ses processus de conception à l’égard de ce qui constitue l’architecture comme « problème en soi ». Dans un second temps, la comparaison de ces observations avec ce qui fait, selon Françoise Choay, théorie chez Alberti, a conforté l’idée de ce que cette construction doctrinale était propre à sous-tendre et qualifier un mode de conception et d’en confirmer, pour une part, les moyens de son ambition “émancipatrice”.

Dans le chapitre 5, nous avons procédé à l’examen de quatre références procédurales de conception que nous avions précédemment identifiées :la re-programmation, la dissociation, l’inversion et la réconciliation des contraires. L’intérêt était double. Il s’agissait, d’une part, de comprendre —et de vérifier— en quoi et comment ces procédures permettaient de rencontrer les objectifs d’une libre conception du projet —ce que nous avons traduit là par leur capacité à innover sur le plan formel et spatial et à assurer une relative autonomie du concepteur— et, d’autre part, de saisir —et montrer— en quoi et comment ils servaient le point de vue de Le Corbusier sur la modernité. Le corpus considéré ici était constitué d’une sélection de réalisations architecturales des années 20. Leur examen permit de saisir concrètement ce vers quoi les procédures conduisaient en examinant ce qu’elles construisaient dans l’œuvre. Bien que non exemptes d’observations personnelles, ces analyses se sont appuyées sur divers travaux antérieurs menés par les exégètes de l’œuvre corbuséenne dont, en particulier, Alan Colquhoun, Colin Rowe, Jacques Lucan, etc, auprès desquels nous avons trouvé matière à étayer nos hypothèses par l’articulation de leurs points de vue au nôtre, réduisant également quelques-unes des fractures de compréhension énoncées dès l’introduction.

Le chapitre 6 a, quant à lui, été plus particulièrement réservé à l’observation des références substantielles présentes dans le système de conception corbuséen au moment des Cinq points, que ce soit sur un plan concret ou à un horizon théorique. Dès l’exposé introductif de nos hypothèses, nous avions en effet relevé la relative incompatibilité que l’on pouvait discerner dans la mise au point d’un système de conception dont on attendait, d’un côté, qu’il puisse en permanence apporter des réponses innovantes en l’appuyant, de l’autre, sur des références de formes —celles des Cinq points— qui ne pouvaient qu’en restreindre l’ordre des possibilités. Deux discussions nous ont permis, sur le plan théorique au moins, de saisir les raisons de cette incompatibilité :celle de l’autoréférentialité du système d’une part et celle du miroir de l’inversion d’autre part, toutes deux conduisant nécessairement à restreindre le champ de la création à l’ordre d’une forme d’imitation.

Le chapitre 7, de conclusion, est revenu plus spécifiquement sur la discussion de l’objectif —et des conditions— dans lesquelles Le Corbusier poursuit cette volonté d’autonomie propre à la posture de l’artiste moderne, et l’objective. Si l’on s’accorde à reconnaître que le processus de modernisation à conduit à l’effritement des traditions stabilisatrices sur lesquelles se fondait ce qui faisait “sens commun”, la question est posée, entre autres, de savoir comment créer et objectiver ce “sens commun” à partir d’une vision subjective du “moi” créateur. La démonstration porte là sur la mise en exergue des invariants sur lesquels Le Corbusier fonde ses discours de validation :les principes pérennes qu’il “reconnaît” dans l’histoire, tout autant que les invariants de “l’homme”, qu’ils soient de nature socio-anthropologique, anthropomorphique ou psycho-physiologique. De la sorte, la posture émancipatrice de Le Corbusier se révèle fondée sur le respect d’un cadre normatif, intemporel, par lequel il tente d’objectiver sa propre subjectivité.

Cette approche duale nous est finalement apparue récurrente à tous niveaux de son processus de conception, et donc comme forgeant l’une de ses spécificités. Quel que soit le niveau auquel on l’envisage, Le Corbusier fonde son approche sur la mise en tension de termes, d’idées ou de figures qu’il oppose et entre lesquels il semble tout à la fois réfléchir, résoudre et exprimer les questions particulières de la conception, visant au final un nouvel équilibre entre les pôles identifiés, ce qu’énonce de manière métaphorique l’oxymore “plan libre”.

Doctorat en Art de bâtir et urbanisme
info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Abstract There was a methodological revolution in the mathematics of the nineteenth century, and philosophers have, for the most part, failed to notice. My objective in this chapter is to convince you of this, and further to convince you of the following points. The philosophy of mathematics has been informed by an inaccurately narrow picture of the emergence of rigour and logical foundations in the nineteenth century. This blinkered vision encourages a picture of philosophical and logical foundations as essentially disengaged from ongoing mathematical practice. Frege is a telling example: we have misunderstood much of what Frege was trying to do, and missed the intended significance of much of what he wrote, because our received stories underestimate the complexity of nineteenth-century mathematics and mislocate Frege’s work within that context. Given Frege’s perceived status as a paradigmatic analytic philosopher, this mislocation translates into an unduly narrow vision of the relation between mathematics and philosophy.

Abstract Introduction Hermann Weyl’s views of mathematical knowledge went through various transformations. He described most of them himself in his retrospective (Weyl 1954). In 1905, at the beginning of his university studies, he was thrown (by Hilbert’s views on the foundations of geometry) from a youthful and naive Kantianism to a ‘positivism’ in the sense of H. Poincaré and E. Mach. Five years later, he came under the influence of Husserl’s phenomenology and turned away from positivism. At Zürich he came into close contact with F. Medicus, an expert in the philosophy of post-Kantian German idealism and an editor of J. G. Fichte’s works. After Weyl came back from service in the German army in 1916, his philosophical outlook turned radically towards realism in the sense of German idealist philosophy, formed under the impression of his way of reading Fichte and, a little later, under the personal influence of L.E.J. Brouwer. In 1926 he had the chance to rework his philosophical outlook when he wrote his contribution Philosophie der Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften for the handbook of philosophy edited by M. Schröter and A. Bumler (Weyl 1927a). During this work Weyl became more closely acquainted with Leibniz’ philosophy, among others. He broadened and refined his philosophical views and started to reconsider his earlier exaggerated rejection of Hilbert’s formalist views in the foundations of mathematics.

Abstract Et his principiis via sternitur ad majora. And by these principles the road is open to higher things. (Newton, quoted by Riemann in 1861)1 With Dirichlet and Riemann, Göttingen has remained the plantation of the most profoundly philosophical orientation in mathematical research that it became with Gauss. (Wilhelm Weber)2 There is no doubt that Bernhard Riemann was one of the main architects of modern mathematics, a visionary planner who delineated new outlines for quarters like complex analysis or abstract geometry, and designed magnificent modern avenues to link mathematics with physics. Riemann’s work emerged from a most noteworthy interaction between the three disciplines of physics, mathematics, and philosophy – the ‘magic triangle,’ as Sánchez Ron has aptly put it in a paper about Einstein. In fact, the evolution of Riemann’s ideas affords a better example of the magic triangle at work than Einstein’s in 1905–1916. We shall examine this in the relatively localized domain of mathematical and physical geometry, but also at the more global level of Riemann’s epistemology of mathematics.

Abstract The aim of this book of essays is to advance contemporary work in creating stronger links between the history and philosophy of mathematics. It has become clear through several conferences and publications that the present situation at the beginning of the twenty-first century is congenial to this kind of historico-philosophical enterprise. The editors have brought together an important international group of scholars whose contributions focus on the history and philosophy of modern mathematics, roughly from 1800 to 1970.

Abstract The legacy of the Kantian theory of knowledge was very much alive among French philosophers of science at the beginning of the twentieth century. To adopt, not the letter of the Kantian system, but its spirit of critique, seemed a good perspective from which to undertake a rational study of science in general, and of mathematics in particular. The critical attitude does indeed invite us to turn away from things in themselves, inaccessible to the human mind, and to keep at arm’s length metaphysical questions, examining instead the defining conditions of knowledge.

Abstract To what extent the philosophy of mathematics of any individual mathematician is relevant to historically understanding his mathematical work, and to what extent his mathematical work has any bearing in understanding philosophical issues related with mathematics, are questions that have different meanings and have to be approached differently when they refer to different mathematicians. Take, for example, Descartes and Frege. These two thinkers can be considered philosophers in the strict sense of the word, with philosophical interests going well beyond the strict scope of mathematics, each of them in his own way. They devoted much of their time and efforts to develop coherent, well-elaborated philosophical systems, and their writings turned them into philosophers in the eyes of the philosophical community. Their philosophical systems are directly relevant to addressing central questions pertaining to the nature of mathematical knowledge, but they were not intended exclusively as answers to specific problems in the philosophy of mathematics. And besides their intense involvement with philosophical questions, both Descartes and Frege contributed positive mathematical results of various kinds, albeit of different overall impact on mathematics at large, and while working under quite different professional circumstances. A natural question that the historian may be easily led to ask in relation to these two thinkers concerns the mutual relationship between the philosophical systems they developed and the mathematics that each of them produced. One way to answer this question is by investigating, separately, the philosophy and the mathematics of each of them, and then trying to articulate the said relationship.

Abstract 1 Introduction Philosophical concerns rarely force their way into the average mathematician’s workday. But, in extreme circumstances, fundamental questions can arise as to the legitimacy of a certain manner of proceeding, say, as to whether a particular object should be granted ontological status, or whether a certain conclusion is epistemologically warranted. There are then two distinct views as to the role that philosophy should play in such a situation. On the first view, the mathematician is called upon to turn to the counsel of philosophers, in much the same way as a nation considering an action of dubious international legality is called upon to turn to the United Nations for guidance. After due consideration of appropriate regulations and guidelines (and, possibly, debate between representatives of different philosophical factions), the philosophers render a decision, by which the dutiful mathematician abides.

Jean Gebser, a prominent German-Swiss philosopher, introduces a transformative framework that aims to elucidatehuman consciousness and cultural structure, laying the foundation for a new approach to interpreting the developmentof architecture. This paper delves into the intersection of Gebser’s theory and modern architecture, with a particularfocus on the emergence and advancement of the “aperspectival” spatial concept in the work of German architect HansScharoun as an illustrative example.Challenging the prevailing linear understanding of time and space, Gebser’s The Ever-present Origin offers insights intothe forms and mutations of human consciousness from its primordial beginning to the “present,” positing that humanityevolves through different modes of consciousness, with each mode building upon and transcending the previous one.Gebser believes that because a key aspect of understanding human perception of time and space is the notion of perspective, the discovery and application of perspective indicate people’s consequent awareness of space. Therefore, based on the absence or presence of perspective, Gebser recognizes three “epochs” in human history, “unperspectival,” “perspectival,” and “aperspectival,” which correspond to the era from the inception of human civilization to the Renaissance, from the Renaissance to the early 20th century, and from the twentiethcentury onward, respectively.Gebser’s philosophy thus provides a new framework for us to understand architecture. Borrowing Gebser’s analysis ofthe “aperspectival” consciousness, this paper shows that the development of modern architecture during the earlydecades of the twentieth century embraced a new spatial language that was aimed to reconcile the fragmentation ofmodern life and form a harmonious wholeness, resonating with the evolving human awareness of “integrity.” The workof notable architects, such as Frank Lloyd Wright, Walter Gropius, and particularly Hans Scharoun, emphasized theinterpenetration of spaces, the blurring of inside-outside boundaries, and the liberation from the linear perspectival spatial construction. The paper thus explores the profound affinity between Gebser’s concept and Scharoun’s architecture, demonstrating that in his theater and concert hall projects, Scharoun challenged both the linear perspective tradition and linear progression of time. Through a close reading of Scharoun’s spatial creation, this paper argues that the architect experimented with new spatial concepts such as “simultaneity” and “aperspectivity” and designed structures that not only accommodated the changing needs of individuals, programs, and society but also promoted a holistic and integral consciousness.

The article discusses the methodology for determining the time of erection of architectural monuments, which is based on the proportions of the volumetric-spatial structure of buildings. In all historical periods, the architecture of buildings was created based on mathematically precise calculations, known as architectural proportions, which acquired metaphysical properties under the influence of ancient philosophy and continued to be used until the late Middle Ages. Depending on the archetype of buildings, the relationship between structural and architectural parts came from a certain part of the building, the so-called module, which changes over time and geographical areas. There are two main types of architectural proportions: constructive and artistic, the first being the most conservative, and the second varying, determining stylistic temporal preferences. In the process of studying the architectural heritage of medieval Moldavia, both types of proportions were identified, amenable to numerical and metrological measurements. In the examples given, the proportions were used to determine the architectural form and antiquity of the buildings.

The study of Chinese architectural history by Chinese scholars started quite late as compared to the study of Western architectural history by Western scholars. Influenced by the philosophy of Confucianism, which devalued material artifacts, architecture was not considered to be a scholarly field in pre-Modern China.1 Chinese scholars treated architecture as a technique mastered by craftsmen and excluded it from the domain of fine arts such as painting, calligraphy, sculpture and inscription. The Western idea of architecture as a respected gentleman’s career was not introduced into China until the end of the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911) with the increas¬ing presence of foreign populations. Once Chinese scholars accepted the idea that architecture was a scholarly discipline, they commenced the study of Chinese architecture through the application of historiographical approaches adapted from non-Chinese sources. Contemporary Chinese scholars are now pursuing revisionist approaches to Chinese architectural historiography that takes account of these complicated lines of influence. In light of these complex cultural genealogies, the objective of this paper is to chart some of the methodological questions to be considered in the development of a critical approach to the historiography of Chinese architecture.

Considering the fact that construction and exploitation of buildings have a significant impact on the pollution of the environment, one of the primary tasks of architectural and construction sector is to solve the increasingly evident ecological imbalance with their doctrine or at least to alleviate it. Biomimicry represents a retroinnovative architectural concept that bases its philosophy of adapting to modern living on imitation of natural phenomena and processes. This way, biomimicry becomes methodological approach to sustainable architecture and urbanism. Considering the fact that the design of many objects in architecture is often inspired by shapes from nature, the aim of this paper is to contribute through the analysis of available literature and case studies elucidating the imoprtance of biomimicry and its potential to initiate a regenerative approach in architecturally sustainable ecodesign. Both (un)known and innovative ideas aimed at creating sustainable facilities will be presented in this paper. The highlighted thing will be the importance of building in harmony with nature without disturbing its balance, as well as the fact that nature is the best guide to a sustainable future.

A chronological historiography of Mies van der Rohe’s architecture uncovers a constant reassessment of his work by critics in changing eras. By the 1990’s he was reassessed as a more complex figure than previously understood. Publications, such as, The Presence of Mies, and, Mies in Berlin/America revealed new ways to conceptualize his work. Today he’s a well-worn symbol of the elite European architect in a necessary, refresh¬ing, and fruitful landscape of broader inclusivity. However, in the canon of Western Modern Architecture Mies is the most mysterious; an architect who conceals multitudes with his silence. Mies’s works are like tofu, his buildings act as tabula rasa in which new meanings can be absorbed within the constant, restless, and shifting tastes of architectural scholarship. Mies cultivated this mystery by saying one thing and doing another. Like Andy Warhol he reduced explanations of his design process to the point of rationalist banality. But a closer understanding of Mies’s philosophy betrays a much deeper surface. A new English translation of highlighted passages in Mies’s personal copy of Romano Guardini’s “Der Gegensatz” (The Opposite), gives a clue into how mysteries within Mies’s works are cultivated. For Mies, these passages revised the understanding of dualities as laid out by classic German philosophy. Hegel supported the synthesis of contradiction through a reposed resolution, but this passage declares an irreducible simultaneity present within paradox. Architecture is a relevant discipline for exploring dualities because it is a discipline steeped in both the rational and the spiritual, serving immediate and abstract needs. Reframing a transitional period in Mies’s career—the projects for the Ulrich Lange and Hubbe House—within the context of his meditations on Guardini reveals a new complexity embedded in the work. His quest to understand the nature of dualities is the underlying flavor of his work after the 1920s.

With a renewed global focus on anti-submarine warfare (ASW), the United States Navy will increasingly rely on unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) technology to serve as a cost-effective force multiplier. Modern UUV development necessitates a uniquely constrained, iterative approach to the traditional submarine design spiral. Considering a broad spectrum of customer-generated requirements, the UUV conceptual design process applies the best practices of naval architecture, marine engineering, ocean engineering, systems engineering, and submersible design. This paper provides an assessment of the traditional approach to the UUV design and development process. Specifically, this paper analyzes the design philosophy for modern UUVs, provides a design framework for the UUV conceptual design process, and details specific recommendations to encourage innovation in the subsea realm.

Résumé: Celui du Modulor est le premier exemple de la mesure humaine utilisée dans l’architecture. L’architecture de la moitié du vingtième siècle a été influencée par les projets de Le Corbusier. En même temps, la pensée de Gaston Bachelard s’évolue contextuellement au Mouvement Moderne et en 1957 le philosophe publie le célèbre ouvrage « La Poétique de l’espace ». Une bonne partie de sa pensée a été influencée par l’étude des quatre éléments naturels, par une conception de l’espace intime et par les différents développements de l’image de la maison. La description de la maison, dans les mots de Bachelard, correspond aux thèses principales de Carl Gustav Jung sur les différentes étapes de l’âme. Dans cette étude nous analysons les liaisons entre une conception intime de l’espace vécu et la pensée progressive de l’architecture moderne. A travers les exemples suggérés par l’Unité d’Habitation et par le Cabanon de Le Corbusier, nous voulons illustrer les dynamiques d’une philosophie de l’espace, émotionnelle, intime et secret. Abstract: The Modulor is the first example of the human measure. The architecture of the second part of the twenty century was influenced by Le Corbusier works. The development of the thought of Gaston Bachelard is contextualized in the second half of the twentieth century too, he writhed the Poetic of the Space on 1957. His philosophy was influenced based on the study of the four natural elements, up to the conception of intimate space, namely that of the house. The Bachelard house description corresponds to the Carl Gustav Jung’s theses about the soul life and the soul stadium. In this paper we analyse the correspondences between an intimate conception of the lived space and an architectural progressive thought. Throw the examples of Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation and of Le Corbusier’s Cabanon we try to explain the emotional, intimate and secret dynamic of a current Space Philosophy. Mots clés: Unités, Modulor, Architecture, Mouvement Moderne, Gaston Bachelard, Poétique de l’espace, Espace intime. Keywords: Unités, Modulor, Architecture, Gaston Bachelard, Space Philosophy, Intimate Space. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4995/LC2015.2015.1045

It has become extremely important to revisit our teaching methodology along with pedagogical contents and objectives, in consideration of the impressive and sometimes overwhelming progress that the technology available to document, analyze and represent the complexity of our built and natural environments has reached, and also the role that it has been proactively playing in affecting our way of thinking, designing and building. A renewed “theory of formativity” (Pareyson)1 styles a knowledge that is generated by a constantly transforming process of “making,” in which methodologies, theoriesand learnings arise within the actions of designing and building, and mostly because of the making. Following the etymology of the Greek world2, this making could be understood as poetic way of actively participating to the changes of our environment. If we look carefully, this approach to structure the knowledge has been deeply rooted in the history and legacy of the most relevant architects and designers, as ontological condition imbedded also into the idea of progress. We have been witnessing several experimentations that have been capable of bringing theoretical explorations, such as the ones from the fields of philosophy and literature, into the realm of design and space making. These explorations reach various degrees of quality, but nevertheless they provide openings to further interesting discussions. An example of this sort could be among others, the collaboration between Eisenman and Derrida for the design proposal for Parc de la Villette in Paris of 19873, where the memory of the proposals for Cannaregio in Venice or the project “Romeo and Juliet” in Verona, are considered within the philosophical background of the criticism to the structuralism, and the projection towards a horizon of deconstruction. This concept migrated from the realm of thinking, to the one of designing and form making, in its highest sense, giving strength to role and identity within the field of architecture, of the idea of “fragment” and “text” often interrupted, following Lyotard’s suggestion4, as expression of the post-modern dimension.