"Generality" is a key ideal in the interaction between the sciences (in the broad sense) and broader cultural domains. We find this ideal at work, very visibly, in innovative fields within mathematics, where it has generated concepts such as "manifold" or "group" that sit precisely between everyday usage and technical meaning. This paper reconstructs how Wilhelm Ostwald uses this kind of concepts and how he consistently employs an interplay between the technical and the everyday usage of these terms in his philosophy of nature̶these conceptual means contribute to framing the philosophy of nature as the "most general part of science." This implies, in particular, that Ostwald's energeticism itself is only a partial realization of a broader program in which the notion of "order" and relational structures more generally replace the notion of energy. At the same time, these strategies are shown to establish links between Ostwald's naturalist program and the foundations of the humanities and here, in particular, with the key ideas of hermeneutics.

Wilhelm Ostwald's attempt at applying his energetics to cultural phenomena implied three crucial aspects: first, in terms of ontology, he argued for monism; second, in terms of methodology, he, quite consequently, argued for naturalism; third, in historical terms, he drew on Auguste Comte's conception of a "pyramid of the sciences." In the paper, it will be shown how the integration of these three aspects led Ostwald to the formulation of a comprehensive energetic theory of culture. Furthermore, Max Weber's critique of Ostwald's theory will be discussed and judged as overdrawn. On the whole, it will turn out that Ostwald's energetic theory of culture is worth being reconsidered.

This paper examines the emergence, culmination, and reception of Energismus (Energeticism) as developed by Josef Schlesinger, an Austrian professor of geometry and geodesy. Convinced of the validity of parapsychic phenomena such as hypnosis, in 1882, Schlesinger thought it necessary to provide scientific foundations for these phenomena, to which purpose he chose ether and substantial space as immaterial principles. His antimaterialistic disposition was evident. Schlesinger's studies in the 1880s attracted much attention from the parapsychic circle because the Psychische Studien journal disseminated his research. In 1901, Schlesinger's last work, Energismus, replaced ether with energy as the fundamental substance of the world, thereby trying to reform the natural sciences by means of energetic principles. Justifying the use of hypotheses, Energismus provides an energetic worldview including the inorganic, organic, and spiritual, where the existence of God is required as the intellectual primal energy to create natural laws. Energismus was met with varied responses. Some were enthusiastic, while others were cautious. The most severe criticisms came from philosophers, whose reviews did not fail to see Schlesinger's philosophical crudeness. Although Energismus was a unique energetic thought at the turn of the century, it was soon forgotten, even by former adherents.

This article analyzes the reception of energetics advocated by German physical chemist, Friedrich Wilhelm Ostwald (1853‒1932), in Japan, focusing on the role of his Japanese student, Ikeda Kikunae (1864‒1936) as its proselytizer. More specifically, it examines the reaction of Japanese philosophers, psychologists and pedagogues to Ostwald and Ikeda in the 1900s and the early 1910s. In doing so, I clarify the importance of a subtle but crucial difference between their positions on the applicability of energetics to science in general for the reception of energetics in Japan. This difference is epitomized by the different ways in which Ostwald and Ikeda visualized the ordering relations between scholarly disciplines, i.e., pyramidal versus cyclic, and discuss possible cultural origins of these differences. Also, I would argue that a rival atomistic theory was also introduced to Japanese philosophers and psychologists by Japanese physicist Nagaoka Hantarō (1865‒1950), internationally known for his Saturnian model of the atom, at exactly the same time. Nagaoka's exposition of atomistics affected the reception of Ikeda's and Ostwald's energetics in Japan.