1. It follows from the very nature of a science that until it has reached a certain stage of development, definition of its character is necessarily impossible. But once this stage of development has been reached not only is it not waste of time to investigate precise chracter; it is waste of time not to do so. (L. Robbins) By the way Prof. E. G. R. Taylor stated once “What have they dooe ? This was the question derisively asked by the educated public about the Fellow of Royal Society in the early years of their incorporation. It is asked today, and in the same mocking spirit, about geographers”. To answer the above question it will be usefull to show the actual works done by many geographers. At the same time, however, geographers also must attempt methodological examination. Because as mentioned above, in case a science has reached a certain stage of development, its further development and repletion of its contents are to be accomplished by methodological examination but not only by trial and error.
2. The writer's methodological examination is first directed to views stated in “American Geography”. In this book Prof. P. E. James shows three contributions of geography. (cf. p. 6) The writer has some questions of the foundation of his views. His first and second items assert to apply practically the concepts and principles provided by other systematic sciences, therefore the writer understands that he characterizes geography as the applied branch of other sciences with theory like the applied chemistry as against the theoretical chemistry. Such understanding leads me to the conclusion that the third asserrtion has no substantial meaning because it remains simply as an applied perspective. Then what is the reason why Prof. James venture to express his views without considering the theoretical basis underlying them? To me such a logical confusion seems to arise from some sort of belief that “area” is a peculiar objective accepted only in the field of geography. To the geographers who have such a belief, so far as their study is concerned with area, it is geography science even if it gets some benefit by the result of other sciences. But there are some questions on area. They are; (1) the concept and treatment of area is not exclusive possession of geography (e. g. as indicated by Prof. R. B. Hall), (2) it is a created intellectual concept (e. g. Prof. D. Whittlesey), (3) it is genetically a product which was brought as the result to avoid inpetous conclusion by environmentalism. So far as these views are admitted, the writer can say on each of them as following; (1) It seems to me that the view intending to characterize the geography only by connection with area has no scientific foundation. So far as the surface of the earth is the stage of human activities, it will be a common field of many sciences, and it is natural that many other sciences have some interest on the approach. Thus it is clear that area is not monopoly of geography.
(2) If area is a created intellectual concept then what is its substantial content? As Prof. H. H. McCarty stated economic geography “derives its concepts largely from the field of economics, ” economic geographers, almost always treat economical phenomena by using concepts of economics. Therefore the writer can say that concrete contents of economic area are agglomeration of economic phenomena studied in economics. The fact that systematic and topical approaches are used in economic geography as well as regional approach, means that the contents of area substantially make those approaches indispensable. The systematic approach means, for instance, that economic geography must depend on the economics, consequently it must have stand-point of economics to areal study.
(3) So far as the area is a product to avoid the defect of environmentalism, it is not an objective but genetically a means of environmentalistic approach.

抄録全体を表示

筆者は1975年の6月に Harvey の処女作“Explanation in Geography”(第15章まで)の邦訳を完了した.それを機会に,現代地理学め歴史と構造とを整理してみようとしたのが本稿である.我が国のこれまでの地理学史や地理学方法論は,地理学の「対象」や,それを取り扱う「方法」に関する議論に終始している.しかし,そのような「対象」や「方法」の論理は,「主体」の論理に先行されねばならない.本稿はその論理を「人間の人間化」と規定し,その論理を詳述するとともに,それをHartshorneからHarveyへの流れに沿って具体化している.人間が「生理的人間」から「知的存在」を経由して「志向的意識の主体」へと純化されるにつれ,その各段階にそれぞれの地理学が存在し,しかも人間の規定様式が地理学の内容を制約するのである.現代地理学の構造と歴史は,英文要旨の中に図表化しておいた.これらの認識が,地理学そのものを洞察する唯一の手段であると信じる.

抄録全体を表示

This paper aims to clarify some of the intentions of Hume's arguments concerning the mind-body problem in his Treatise of Human Nature, I, iv, 5. It attempts to examine three main things: (1) the features of Hume's argu­ments compared with those of Locke; (2) Hume's own use of the words, such as ‘notion’, ‘fiction’ or ‘feign’, and ‘imagination’ or ‘fancy’; and (3) Hume's new method of explanation in terms of human nature on the problem concern­ing a conjunction of mind and body in place. In the course of these examina­tions, it will be shown that Hume's sceptical arguments suggest a new solution on the problem concerned, and lead to the naturalism, presented in the light of human nature.

抄録全体を表示