...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal for general philosophy of science >Vollkommene Syllogismen und reine Vernunftschliisse:Aristoteles und Kant. Eine Stellungnahme zu Theodor Eberts Gegeneinwanden. Teil 2
【24h】

Vollkommene Syllogismen und reine Vernunftschliisse:Aristoteles und Kant. Eine Stellungnahme zu Theodor Eberts Gegeneinwanden. Teil 2

机译：完美的三段论和纯粹的推理：亚里斯多德和康德，关于西奥多·埃伯特的异议的陈述。第2部分

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

In an earlier article (see J Gen Philos Sci (2010) 41: 341-355) I have compared Aristotle's syllogistic with Kant's theory of "pure ratiocination". "Ratiocinia pura" (,,reine Vernunftschlusse") is Kant's designation for assertoric syllogisms Aristotle has called 'perfect'. In Kant's view they differ from non-pure ratiocinia precisely in that their validity rests only on the validity of the Dictum de omni et nullo (which, however, in Kant's view can be further reduced to more fundamental principles) whereas the validity of non-pure ratiocinia additionally presupposes the validity of inferences which Kant calls conse-quentiae immediatae. I have argued that Kant's view is in some (not in all) essential features in accordance with Aristotle's view concerning perfect syllogisms and certainly leading to a tenable and interesting logical theory. As a result I have rejected not only the interpretation of Aristotle adopted by Theodor Ebert, but also the objections he has raised against Kant's logical theory. As far as Aristotle is concerned, Ebert has attempted to defend his position in the first part of his reply to my article published in J Gen Philos Sci (2009) 40: 357-365, and I have argued against this defence in issue 1 of the J Gen Philos Sci (2010) 41: 199-213 (cf. Ebert's answer in the same issue pp. 215-231). In the following discussion I deal with Eberts defence of his criticism of Kant published in the second part of his reply to my article (see J Gen Philos Sci (2009) 40: 365-372). I shall argue, that Kant's principle 'nota notae est nota rei ipsius' and his use of technical vocabulary stand up to the objections raised by Ebert. His attempts to prove that Kant's logical theory is defective are based on several misinterpretations.
机译：在较早的文章中（请参阅J Gen Philos Sci（2010）41：341-355），我将亚里士多德的三段论与康德的“纯比例诱变”理论进行了比较。 “ Ratiocinia pura”（，reine Vernunftschlusse”）是康德对自言自语的亚里士多德所说的“完美”的称呼。在康德看来，它们与非纯比例狂犬病的不同之处在于，它们的有效性仅取决于全书的有效性nullo（但是，在康德看来，它可以进一步简化为更基本的原则），而非纯比率的有效性还以康德称为连续事件即刻推断的有效性为前提。我认为，康德的观点在某些方面（ （并非全部）符合亚里士多德关于完美三段论的观点的必不可少的特征，并且肯定会导致成立一个持久而有趣的逻辑理论，因此，我不仅拒绝了西奥多·埃伯特（Theodor Ebert）对亚里士多德的解释，也拒绝了他所提出的反对意见康德的逻辑理论，就亚里士多德而言，埃伯特在他对我发表的文章的第一部分中试图捍卫自己的立场n J Gen Philos Sci（2009）40：357-365，我在《 J Gen Philos Sci（2010）41：199-213》第1期中反对这种辩护。埃伯特（Ebert）在同一期第215-231页中的回答）。在下面的讨论中，我讨论了埃伯茨对他对康德的批评的辩护，该评论发表在他对我的文章的答复的第二部分中（参见J Gen Philos Sci（2009）40：365-372）。我要争辩说，康德的原则“ nota notae est nota rei ipsius”及其对技术词汇的使用符合埃伯特提出的反对意见。他试图证明康德的逻辑理论是有缺陷的，是基于几种误解。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号