The first explanation is that Newton's failure is caused by his believing that motion is a mode instead of an attribute or essence of matter. Hessen gives two, quite distinct, 'internal' explanations of Newton's failure to see this. Contra Newton, Hessen believes that nature does not need God in order to function properly. Furthermore, it allows for a way to approach Hessen's contribution under a new light in the present.Ī significant thread in Boris Hessen's iconic essay, The Social and Economic Roots of Newton's Principia (1931), is his critique of Newton's involving God in his physics. The paper draws the conclusion that the connection between Hessen and Russian Machism is consistent with the international reception of his work as it emerges in the historiography of science studies. His consecration as a-precursor of both externalism and the contemporary field of STS shows how it is necessary to reinterpret Hessen's theses within the context of the Soviet debates of his day. The reception of Hessen's theses clearly shows how his work has been at the center of symbolic negotiations and historiographical re-interpretations.

The second part frames Hessen's ideas within the context of the early establishment of dialectical materialism, arguing for the proximity of his thought to the positions of the Russian Machists, in particular, Alexander A. The first part introduces Hessen's theses and reconstructs their reception from the 1930s to the most contemporary research in Science and Technology Studies in an attempt to understand how and why Hessen's work has been recognized as a-classic in various disciplinary fields and contexts. This article is based on a joint endeavor.

Calibre obscura galil