[1999] D. Suisky, *Über eine Differenz in der Begründung des Wirkungsprinzips bei Maupertuis und Euler*, in: Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis. Eine Bilanz nach 300 Jahren, ed. by Hartmut Hecht, Berlin 1999.

[2000] D. Suisky,*Direct and indirect methods in 18th century mechanics*. The background of the Eulerian methodological approach, HOPOS, Vienna 2000.

[2001] D. Suisky and P. Enders,*Leibniz’s foundation of mechanics and the development of 18th century mechanics initiated by Euler*, in: Proc. VII Int. Leibniz Congress, Berlin 2001.

[2005a] D. Suisky and P. Enders,*Quantization as selection problem. Einstein’s approach - reconsidered*, Annual Meeting of German Physical Society, Berlin 2005.

[2005b] D. Suisky and P. Enders,*Dynamical derivation of Lorentz transformation*, Annual Meeting of German Physical Society, Berlin 2005.

[2005c] D. Suisky,*Euler and modern mechanics*, Euler Society Conference 2005, Roger Williams University, Bristol RI.

[2006a] D. Suisky,*Euler’s contribution to the foundation of mechanics*, Annual Meeting of German Physical Society, Dortmund 2006.

[2006b] D. Suisky,*On the derivation of Lorentz transformation using ordering relations*, Annual Meeting of German Physical Society, Dortmund 2006.

[2006c] D. Suisky,*Euler’s foundation of mechanics using nonstandard analysis*, Euler Society Conference 2006, College of Saint Rose, Albany NY.

[2006d] D. Suisky,*The Newton-Leibniz controversy on space and time and the development of mechanics by Euler and Einstein*, in: Proc. VIII Int. Leibniz Congress, Hannover 2006.

**2007 **

**DPG 2007 AKPhil 8.2 Fr 9:30 KIP SR 3.401**

**On the post-Newtonian period in the development of mechanics**

**D****PG 2007 AKPhil 8.3 Fr 10:00 KIP SR 3.401**

**Euler’s mechanics as a unified theory of matter and motion**

**2011**

**[2011a]** **D. Suisky,** *Newton**’s and Leibniz’s transformation of statics into dynamics – the role of ancient science***, DPG Frühjahstagung 2011, Dresden.**

**An important common feature in the work of ****Newton**** and Leibniz is the pronounced opposition to Descartes. Though both started with a direct reference to their predecessor, both changed their minds and criticized the shortcomings of Descartes’ theory****. ****Newton**

** rejected the theory of vortices and the Cartesian innovation in the analytical representation of geometrical relations. Leibniz replaced the Cartesian measure of the quantity of motion or of the dead forces with the measure according to living forces.**

**It will be argued that this turn away from the Cartesian theory was essentially performed by means of a reinterpretation of ancient sources. Newton recovered Euclid ****(“****[Newton] speak with regret of his mistake at the beginning of his mathematical studies, in applying himself to the works of Des Cartes and other algebraic writers, before he had considered the elements of Euclid with that ****attention, which so excellent a writer deserves.” [Pemberton]****). Leibniz benefited from the achievements of the Peripatetics (Specimen, 1695). **

**The different outcomes are interpreted in terms of the different reference to ancient authors. Favouring ****geometric methods, ****Newton** **underestimated the promising power of the analytical approach whereas Leibniz underestimated the heuristic role of the idea of the vacuum. **

**In the 18**^{th}** century, this reference to ancient sources had been continued. Euler (Mechanica, 1736) and Du Châtelet (Institutions, 1740) emphasized the decisive role of Archimedes’ model of the lever for thought experiments and Lambert interpreted Kant’s innovations in terms of the former ancient distinction between phenomenon an noumenon (1770). **

**[2011b] ****D. Suisky, ***Das Substanzproblem bei Schlick und Cassirer und die Grundlegung der Physik bei Euler***, Universität Rostock.**

**Anknüpfend an Otto Neuraths Darstellung des historischen Hintergrundes für die Entstehung des logischen Empirismus und die Analyse des Substanzproblems durch Schlick und Cassirer wird gezeigt, daß Eulers Grundlegung der Physik weitgehend den Kriterien des Scientismus genügt und Euler darüber hinaus, ebenso wie der Wiener Kreis im frühen 20. Jahrhundert, ****in Opposition zur damaligen traditionellen Philosophie im frühen 18. Jahrhundert stand. Insbesondere wird Eulers Position in seiner Kritik des Lehrgebäudes von den Monaden, der weitgehend metaphysikfreien Definition des Kraftbegriffs und der sich daran anschließenden operationalen Definition der Masse deutlich. **

[2000] D. Suisky,

[2001] D. Suisky and P. Enders,

[2005a] D. Suisky and P. Enders,

[2005b] D. Suisky and P. Enders,

[2005c] D. Suisky,

[2006a] D. Suisky,

[2006b] D. Suisky,

[2006c] D. Suisky,

[2006d] D. Suisky,

Antimetaphysis. Grundtendenz | Starker Emprirismus | Umfassende Logisierung | Betonung der Mathematik | |

Pythagoreer | — | — | — | + |

Epikureer | + | — | — | — |

Scholastik | — | — | + | — |

Leibniz | — | + | + | + |

Kant | — | + | — | + |

Fichte | — | — | — | — |

Scientismus | + | + | + | + |

EULER | + | + | + | + |