Shorter Notices

D. Emmet, Roman Catholicism
{"title":"Shorter Notices","authors":"D. Emmet, Roman Catholicism","doi":"10.1086/intejethi.48.1.2989312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"leianism as \"vicious intellectualism\" is clearly unfair. Bradley and Bergson both criticize the categories of science as partial viewpoints and reject the view that the absolute is a logical construction. Both look for a means of apprehending a reality which is an individual unity and includes feeling. So Bergson's \"intuition\" is fruitfully compared with Bradley's \"higher immediacy.\" Bergson comes out of the comparison best in Mr. Loomba's eyes. This is partly because of his deeper appreciation of life and growth. Bradley's absolute became a static \"block universe.\" But this, Mr. Loomba interestingly urges, is not a necessary consequence of Bradley's metaphysical attitude, so much as conditioned by the philosophic tradition in which he stood. His absolute is really the immediate collective experience of the multiplicity of appearances, which in effect he considers as an ideal and so renders static. So much we may grant on Bergson's side. But on the other counts, unlike Mr. Loomba, we are inclined to give higher marks to Bradley. Bergson believes that his \"intuition\" can be completely realized-that we can achieve a form of thought which dispenses altogether with symbols. Bradley is to the end more sceptical-we can have partial experience of such Scientia intuitive, but in its fulness it is o068 Kr'frov TOP","PeriodicalId":346392,"journal":{"name":"The International Journal of Ethics","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1937-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International Journal of Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/intejethi.48.1.2989312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

leianism as "vicious intellectualism" is clearly unfair. Bradley and Bergson both criticize the categories of science as partial viewpoints and reject the view that the absolute is a logical construction. Both look for a means of apprehending a reality which is an individual unity and includes feeling. So Bergson's "intuition" is fruitfully compared with Bradley's "higher immediacy." Bergson comes out of the comparison best in Mr. Loomba's eyes. This is partly because of his deeper appreciation of life and growth. Bradley's absolute became a static "block universe." But this, Mr. Loomba interestingly urges, is not a necessary consequence of Bradley's metaphysical attitude, so much as conditioned by the philosophic tradition in which he stood. His absolute is really the immediate collective experience of the multiplicity of appearances, which in effect he considers as an ideal and so renders static. So much we may grant on Bergson's side. But on the other counts, unlike Mr. Loomba, we are inclined to give higher marks to Bradley. Bergson believes that his "intuition" can be completely realized-that we can achieve a form of thought which dispenses altogether with symbols. Bradley is to the end more sceptical-we can have partial experience of such Scientia intuitive, but in its fulness it is o068 Kr'frov TOP
较短的通知
莱伊主义被称为“邪恶的理智主义”显然是不公平的。布拉德利和柏格森都批评科学的范畴是片面的观点,并反对绝对是一种逻辑结构的观点。两者都在寻找一种理解现实的方法,现实是一个个体的统一体,包括感觉。因此,柏格森的“直觉”与布拉德利的“更高的即时性”相比是卓有成效的。在隆巴看来,柏格森最适合这种比较。这部分是因为他对生活和成长有了更深刻的理解。布拉德利的绝对变成了一个静态的“块宇宙”。但有趣的是,隆巴先生认为,这并不是布拉德利形而上学态度的必然结果,而是他所处的哲学传统所制约的结果。他的绝对实际上是表象多样性的直接集体经验,实际上他认为这是一种理想,因此是静态的。这么多我们都同意柏格森的观点。但在其他方面,不像隆巴先生,我们倾向于给布拉德利更高的分数。柏格森相信他的“直觉”是可以完全实现的——我们可以获得一种完全不需要符号的思维形式。布莱德雷到最后更持怀疑态度——我们可以有这种科学直觉的部分经验,但就其全部而言,它是来自TOP的
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信