Anti-realistic and Non-classical Theories of Analysis and Synthesis

G. Levin
{"title":"Anti-realistic and Non-classical Theories of Analysis and Synthesis","authors":"G. Levin","doi":"10.21146/2414-3715-2021-7-2-188-210","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article shows that three antirealistic theories of classical analysis and synthesis are logically possible: presentationistic, solipsistic and Kantian, but only the latter is actually being developed. Revealed its specific features and features shared with other, logically possible antirealistic theories. The correlation of the Kantian theory of analysis and synthesis of knowledge with his theory of analysis and synthesis of subjects of knowledge is analyzed. Gnoseological problems that forced Kant to assert that new knowledge is provided only by the synthesis of knowledge, and analysis only clarifies the results of synthesis, are characterized. The Kantian solution to these problems is correlated with their realistic solution. The role that the Kantian \"Copernican revolution in philosophy\" plays in his interpretation of the analysis and synthesis of subjects of knowledge is investigated. The Kantian theory of analytical and synthetic judgments is considered. It is shown that the Kantian question \"how are synthetic judgments a priori possible?\" is essentially a question about the nature of theoretical knowledge, which was historically formed in ancient geometry precisely as the unity of analysis and synthesis. A qualitative difference is shown between classical and geometric (by origin) analysis and synthesis. Three historical stages of their formation are described. The assertion of I. Newton that the natural science experiment arose as a result of the extension of the method of geometric analysis and synthesis to the natural sciences is investigated.","PeriodicalId":319029,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical anthropology","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical anthropology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2414-3715-2021-7-2-188-210","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

The article shows that three antirealistic theories of classical analysis and synthesis are logically possible: presentationistic, solipsistic and Kantian, but only the latter is actually being developed. Revealed its specific features and features shared with other, logically possible antirealistic theories. The correlation of the Kantian theory of analysis and synthesis of knowledge with his theory of analysis and synthesis of subjects of knowledge is analyzed. Gnoseological problems that forced Kant to assert that new knowledge is provided only by the synthesis of knowledge, and analysis only clarifies the results of synthesis, are characterized. The Kantian solution to these problems is correlated with their realistic solution. The role that the Kantian "Copernican revolution in philosophy" plays in his interpretation of the analysis and synthesis of subjects of knowledge is investigated. The Kantian theory of analytical and synthetic judgments is considered. It is shown that the Kantian question "how are synthetic judgments a priori possible?" is essentially a question about the nature of theoretical knowledge, which was historically formed in ancient geometry precisely as the unity of analysis and synthesis. A qualitative difference is shown between classical and geometric (by origin) analysis and synthesis. Three historical stages of their formation are described. The assertion of I. Newton that the natural science experiment arose as a result of the extension of the method of geometric analysis and synthesis to the natural sciences is investigated.
反现实与非经典的分析与综合理论
本文认为,古典分析与综合的三种反现实理论在逻辑上是可能的:表象论、唯我论和康德论,但实际上只有后者在发展。揭示了它的特殊性和与其他具有逻辑可能性的反现实理论的共性。分析了康德的分析与知识综合理论与他的分析与知识主体综合理论的关系。这些问题迫使康德断言,新知识只能由知识的综合提供,而分析只能澄清综合的结果。康德对这些问题的解决方法与它们的现实解决方法是相关联的。康德的“哥白尼式哲学革命”在他对知识主体的分析和综合的解释中所起的作用进行了调查。本文考虑了康德的分析判断和综合判断理论。康德的“先天的综合判断如何成为可能”的问题,实质上是一个关于理论知识的性质的问题,而理论知识在古代几何学中正是作为分析与综合的统一而历史地形成的。经典的和几何的(按来源)分析和综合有质的区别。描述了它们形成的三个历史阶段。本文考察了牛顿的论断,即自然科学实验是由于几何分析和综合方法在自然科学中的推广而产生的。
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