Write a short note on contribution of A.V. Humboldt to Geography?
Answers
Answered by
4
Geography, according to Humboldt, was the means of comprehending ‘the harmonious unity of the cosmos’ as a living whole, ‘a unity of multiplicity’. Insight into the cosmic organism creates a spiritual enjoyment and an inner freedom which even under fate’s hard blows cannot be destroyed by external power. Humboldt’s concept of geography was basically the same as of Ritter’s.
In an early work (Flora Fribergenis), he briefly touched upon the limits of the various sciences and distinguished between ‘Physiographia’ (the systematic natural sciences), ‘Naturgeschichte (natural history) where the emphasis was on the development of things in time, and ‘Geognosie’ or ‘Weltbeschreibung’, which discussed spatial distribution. The science of spatial distribution thus established was not limited to the Earth’s surface; it was not a description of the Earth but of the world, i.e. a science of the cosmos.
Humboldt points out – ‘the uncommon but definite expression of the science of the Cosmos recalls to the mind of the inhabitant of the Earth that we are treating of a more widely extended horizon; of the assemblage of all things with which space is filled.
From the remotest nebulae to the climatic distribution of those delicate tissues of vegetable matter which spreads a variegated covering over the surface of our rocks … if scientific terms had not long been diverted from their signification, the present work ought rather to have borne the title Cosmography divided into Uranography and Geography’.
Uranography was descriptive astronomy dealing with the celestial part of cosmos. Geography, or physical geography, dealt with the terrestrial part. Its ultimate aim was ‘to recognise unity in the vast diversity of phenomena, and by the exercise of thought and the combination of observations, to discern the constancy of phenomena in the midst of apparent changes’.
The Humboldtian geography seems to reflect the Kantian concept of geography, but there is no evidence of Kant being quoted by Humboldt. However, the question normally arises: to what extent is his thought derived from Kant? Humboldt’s Flora Fribergenis was published nine years before Kant’s lectures on geography, but Humboldt was so acquainted with Kant’s philosophy and scientific opinions from the age of sixteen onwards that it is highly probable that he had some notion of Kant’s concept of geography before he wrote the Flora.
Whatever the actual facts, it was the Kantian concept of geography that Humboldt held and which he expounded in Cosmos. He was also influenced by the philosophical approach of Rousseau which dealt with the descriptions of ‘the harmonies of nature’, and which had profound effect on Humboldt’s philosophical foundation.
It is assumed that Kant’s logical classification of knowledge made room for the specialist in the study of particular processes without reference to time or space. That this was a generally accepted division of the world of scholarship and not an invention of Kant is made clear by Humboldt’s earlier studies (1793) of the subterranean plants in the mines at Freiberg. In the introduction to this monograph, he pointed out that he was not studying plants as such, but rather the plants in relation to their surroundings.
Humboldt strongly held the idea of the unity of human race, ‘a concept which he further developed and strengthened, and manifested his concern about the deteriorating human condition both at home and abroad, especially in Cuba’.
The degeneration of Christianity by great wealth was a great socio-economic phenomenon that seemed to have rocked the continent much earlier and which persisted even during his time. The opposite ‘hypothesis of racial gradations among men’ he characterized as ‘not only unkind but also false’.
Humboldt believed that all the races of humankind had a common origin and that no race was necessarily inferior to others; all races, he insisted, were equally destined for freedom, individually or in groups. In his master work, the Cosmos, he remarked- ‘We wish to note our idea which is visible in ever-increasing validity through the whole of history…the idea of humanity to treat the whole of humanity, without considerations of religion, nationality and color as one great closely related race, as one whole existing for the attainment of one purpose, the free development of inner powers’.
Although ‘Humboldt’s thesis would find more support among the anthropologists than that on which Frobel as well as Peschel based their criticism, the criticism itself was essentially justified, his views on the question were strongly influenced by non- scientific consideration’.
In an early work (Flora Fribergenis), he briefly touched upon the limits of the various sciences and distinguished between ‘Physiographia’ (the systematic natural sciences), ‘Naturgeschichte (natural history) where the emphasis was on the development of things in time, and ‘Geognosie’ or ‘Weltbeschreibung’, which discussed spatial distribution. The science of spatial distribution thus established was not limited to the Earth’s surface; it was not a description of the Earth but of the world, i.e. a science of the cosmos.
Humboldt points out – ‘the uncommon but definite expression of the science of the Cosmos recalls to the mind of the inhabitant of the Earth that we are treating of a more widely extended horizon; of the assemblage of all things with which space is filled.
From the remotest nebulae to the climatic distribution of those delicate tissues of vegetable matter which spreads a variegated covering over the surface of our rocks … if scientific terms had not long been diverted from their signification, the present work ought rather to have borne the title Cosmography divided into Uranography and Geography’.
Uranography was descriptive astronomy dealing with the celestial part of cosmos. Geography, or physical geography, dealt with the terrestrial part. Its ultimate aim was ‘to recognise unity in the vast diversity of phenomena, and by the exercise of thought and the combination of observations, to discern the constancy of phenomena in the midst of apparent changes’.
The Humboldtian geography seems to reflect the Kantian concept of geography, but there is no evidence of Kant being quoted by Humboldt. However, the question normally arises: to what extent is his thought derived from Kant? Humboldt’s Flora Fribergenis was published nine years before Kant’s lectures on geography, but Humboldt was so acquainted with Kant’s philosophy and scientific opinions from the age of sixteen onwards that it is highly probable that he had some notion of Kant’s concept of geography before he wrote the Flora.
Whatever the actual facts, it was the Kantian concept of geography that Humboldt held and which he expounded in Cosmos. He was also influenced by the philosophical approach of Rousseau which dealt with the descriptions of ‘the harmonies of nature’, and which had profound effect on Humboldt’s philosophical foundation.
It is assumed that Kant’s logical classification of knowledge made room for the specialist in the study of particular processes without reference to time or space. That this was a generally accepted division of the world of scholarship and not an invention of Kant is made clear by Humboldt’s earlier studies (1793) of the subterranean plants in the mines at Freiberg. In the introduction to this monograph, he pointed out that he was not studying plants as such, but rather the plants in relation to their surroundings.
Humboldt strongly held the idea of the unity of human race, ‘a concept which he further developed and strengthened, and manifested his concern about the deteriorating human condition both at home and abroad, especially in Cuba’.
The degeneration of Christianity by great wealth was a great socio-economic phenomenon that seemed to have rocked the continent much earlier and which persisted even during his time. The opposite ‘hypothesis of racial gradations among men’ he characterized as ‘not only unkind but also false’.
Humboldt believed that all the races of humankind had a common origin and that no race was necessarily inferior to others; all races, he insisted, were equally destined for freedom, individually or in groups. In his master work, the Cosmos, he remarked- ‘We wish to note our idea which is visible in ever-increasing validity through the whole of history…the idea of humanity to treat the whole of humanity, without considerations of religion, nationality and color as one great closely related race, as one whole existing for the attainment of one purpose, the free development of inner powers’.
Although ‘Humboldt’s thesis would find more support among the anthropologists than that on which Frobel as well as Peschel based their criticism, the criticism itself was essentially justified, his views on the question were strongly influenced by non- scientific consideration’.
Similar questions