Modernism and philosophical tradition

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
Garris S. Rogonyan
{"title":"Modernism and philosophical tradition","authors":"Garris S. Rogonyan","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-3-69-84","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many philosophers agree that in our relations with philosophical tradition we face a hermeneutic problem. This problem is how to achieve an adequate understanding of the representatives of this tradition. It is believed that we need to establish a dialogue with figures from the past, rather than attribute our own thoughts and ideas to them. However, few dare to offer a reliable way to achieve this. At the same time, there are those who believe that the hermeneutic problem points to a fundamentally problematic relationship with our history. In this case, we are talking not only about a separate prob­lem requiring its solution, but about a certain attitude as well. Within this attitude, we are focused not so much on an adequate interpretation of the philosophical tradition as on its overcoming. However, the nature of these problematic relations with tradition can be de­scribed differently. For example, one can consider their dependence on tradition as an ob­stacle to understanding oneself and one’s relations with the world. Conversely, one can consider it a condition for such understanding. It is the latter view that John McDowell adheres to. Without denying the obvious fact that there must be a certain distance be­tween different historical contexts, he nevertheless shows that there is no unbridgeable gap in philosophy between its present and past. The article provides an overview of how McDowell, relying on Wilfrid Sellars’s idea of the logical space of reasons and Hans-Georg Gadamer’s idea of fusion of horizons, solves this problem. In addition, the article shows why McDowell himself can be considered a representative of modernism in phi­losophy.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-3-69-84","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many philosophers agree that in our relations with philosophical tradition we face a hermeneutic problem. This problem is how to achieve an adequate understanding of the representatives of this tradition. It is believed that we need to establish a dialogue with figures from the past, rather than attribute our own thoughts and ideas to them. However, few dare to offer a reliable way to achieve this. At the same time, there are those who believe that the hermeneutic problem points to a fundamentally problematic relationship with our history. In this case, we are talking not only about a separate prob­lem requiring its solution, but about a certain attitude as well. Within this attitude, we are focused not so much on an adequate interpretation of the philosophical tradition as on its overcoming. However, the nature of these problematic relations with tradition can be de­scribed differently. For example, one can consider their dependence on tradition as an ob­stacle to understanding oneself and one’s relations with the world. Conversely, one can consider it a condition for such understanding. It is the latter view that John McDowell adheres to. Without denying the obvious fact that there must be a certain distance be­tween different historical contexts, he nevertheless shows that there is no unbridgeable gap in philosophy between its present and past. The article provides an overview of how McDowell, relying on Wilfrid Sellars’s idea of the logical space of reasons and Hans-Georg Gadamer’s idea of fusion of horizons, solves this problem. In addition, the article shows why McDowell himself can be considered a representative of modernism in phi­losophy.
现代主义与哲学传统
许多哲学家都认为,在我们与哲学传统的关系中,我们面临着一个解释学问题。问题在于如何充分理解这一传统的代表人物。人们认为,我们需要与过去的人物建立对话,而不是将自己的想法和想法归因于他们。然而,很少有人敢提供一种可靠的方法来实现这一目标。与此同时,有些人认为,解释学问题指出了我们与历史的根本问题关系。在这种情况下,我们谈论的不仅是一个需要解决的独立问题,而且是一种特定的态度。在这种态度下,我们关注的不是对哲学传统的充分解释,而是对其克服。然而,这些与传统的问题关系的本质可以用不同的方式来描述。例如,人们可以认为他们对传统的依赖是理解自己以及自己与世界关系的障碍。相反,我们也可以把它看作是这种理解的一个条件。约翰·麦克道尔坚持的是后一种观点。他不否认不同的历史背景之间一定有一定距离这一明显的事实,但他表明,在哲学上,现在和过去之间没有不可逾越的鸿沟。本文概述了麦克道尔是如何依靠威尔弗里德·塞拉斯的理性逻辑空间思想和汉斯-乔治·伽达默尔的视界融合思想来解决这个问题的。此外,文章还说明了为什么麦克道尔本人可以被认为是现代主义哲学的代表。
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
Filosofskii Zhurnal
Filosofskii Zhurnal PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
50.00%
发文量
25
×
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