A Complementary Approach to Aristotle’s Account and Carnap’s Account of Explication

Christian J. Feldbacher-Escamilla
{"title":"A Complementary Approach to Aristotle’s Account and Carnap’s Account of Explication","authors":"Christian J. Feldbacher-Escamilla","doi":"10.30965/26664275-02201002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, it is argued that there are relevant similarities between Aristotle’s account of definition and Carnap’s account of explication. To show this, first, Aristotle’s conditions of adequacy for definitions are provided and an outline of the main critique put forward against Aristotle’s account of definition is given. Subsequently, Carnap’s conditions of adequacy for explications are presented and discussed. It is shown that Aristotle’s conditions of extensional correctness can be interpreted against the backdrop of Carnap’s condition of similarity once one skips Aristotelian essentialism and takes a Carnapian and more pragmatic stance. Finally, it is argued that, in general, a complementary rational reconstruction of both approaches allows for resolving problems of interpretational underdetermination.","PeriodicalId":433626,"journal":{"name":"Analysis and Explication in 20th Century Philosophy","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analysis and Explication in 20th Century Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30965/26664275-02201002","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

In this paper, it is argued that there are relevant similarities between Aristotle’s account of definition and Carnap’s account of explication. To show this, first, Aristotle’s conditions of adequacy for definitions are provided and an outline of the main critique put forward against Aristotle’s account of definition is given. Subsequently, Carnap’s conditions of adequacy for explications are presented and discussed. It is shown that Aristotle’s conditions of extensional correctness can be interpreted against the backdrop of Carnap’s condition of similarity once one skips Aristotelian essentialism and takes a Carnapian and more pragmatic stance. Finally, it is argued that, in general, a complementary rational reconstruction of both approaches allows for resolving problems of interpretational underdetermination.
亚里士多德解释论与卡尔纳普解释论之互补
本文认为,亚里士多德关于定义的论述与卡尔纳普关于解释的论述之间存在相关的相似之处。为了说明这一点,本文首先提出了亚里士多德关于定义的适当条件,并概述了对亚里士多德关于定义的论述所提出的主要批评。随后,提出并讨论了卡尔纳普解释的充分性条件。一旦我们跳过亚里士多德的本质论而采取一种更为实用主义的卡尔纳普立场,我们就可以在卡尔纳普的相似性条件的背景下解释亚里士多德的外延正确性条件。最后,本文认为,一般来说,两种方法的互补理性重建允许解决解释不充分的问题。
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