{"title":"Benedetto Croce. A Question of Method in the History of Philosophy. Preface, translation and commentaries","authors":"J. G. Rossius","doi":"10.21146/10.21146/2074-5869-2023-28-2-109-116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This publication presents a translation into Russian of Benedetto Croce’s essay from one of his later books “Philosophy and Historiography”. Here he raises the question of how the historian of philosophy should interpret those moments when the reasoning of a philosopher who is being studied is accidentally or deliberately not cleared up by him, or its development stops at a certain point. Considering the possible reasons for this, Croce touches on several themes to which his earlier writings were devoted and to which he returned throughout his scholarly life. Thus, he draws attention to the contradiction in the theory of knowledge of G. Vico, which consists in the application of the principle of verum-factum not only to history, but also to the mathematical sciences: on the one hand, only God can achieve truth in knowledge of nature, since he created nature, and on the other hand, truth in mathematics is available to man, since he “creates” mathematical elements and operations, and with them the method of natural science. Croce also points as an example to one of the contradictions in Hegel’s philosophy of nature, which consists in the confusion of empirical and speculative methods. It led to the endowment of the natural sciences with the status of “semi-philosophy”, to the untrue application of dialectics to the facts and concepts of the natural sciences. Convinced that the verum-factum formula can be combined with the teaching of absolute spiritualism, Croce warns against attributing such a connection to Vico himself, as this would mean incorporating later experience and a state of knowledge into his theory.","PeriodicalId":485432,"journal":{"name":"История философии","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"История философии","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/10.21146/2074-5869-2023-28-2-109-116","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
This publication presents a translation into Russian of Benedetto Croce’s essay from one of his later books “Philosophy and Historiography”. Here he raises the question of how the historian of philosophy should interpret those moments when the reasoning of a philosopher who is being studied is accidentally or deliberately not cleared up by him, or its development stops at a certain point. Considering the possible reasons for this, Croce touches on several themes to which his earlier writings were devoted and to which he returned throughout his scholarly life. Thus, he draws attention to the contradiction in the theory of knowledge of G. Vico, which consists in the application of the principle of verum-factum not only to history, but also to the mathematical sciences: on the one hand, only God can achieve truth in knowledge of nature, since he created nature, and on the other hand, truth in mathematics is available to man, since he “creates” mathematical elements and operations, and with them the method of natural science. Croce also points as an example to one of the contradictions in Hegel’s philosophy of nature, which consists in the confusion of empirical and speculative methods. It led to the endowment of the natural sciences with the status of “semi-philosophy”, to the untrue application of dialectics to the facts and concepts of the natural sciences. Convinced that the verum-factum formula can be combined with the teaching of absolute spiritualism, Croce warns against attributing such a connection to Vico himself, as this would mean incorporating later experience and a state of knowledge into his theory.
本出版物介绍了贝内代托·克罗齐(Benedetto Croce)在其后期著作《哲学与史学》(Philosophy and historography)中的一篇文章的俄文翻译。在这里,他提出了一个问题,哲学史家应该如何解释这些时刻,当一个被研究的哲学家的推理偶然或故意没有被他澄清,或者它的发展在某一点上停止了。考虑到可能的原因,克罗齐触及了几个主题,他早期的作品致力于,并在他的学术生涯中回归。因此,他提请注意维科(G. Vico)的认识论中的矛盾,这种矛盾不仅存在于历史中,也存在于数学科学中:一方面,只有上帝才能在关于自然的知识中获得真理,因为他创造了自然;另一方面,数学中的真理对人类来说是可用的,因为他“创造”了数学元素和运算,并由此创造了自然科学的方法。克罗齐还举例指出了黑格尔自然哲学中的一个矛盾,即经验方法和思辨方法的混淆。它导致了自然科学被赋予了“半哲学”的地位,导致了辩证法对自然科学事实和概念的不正确应用。克罗齐确信事实真相公式可以与绝对唯心论的教学相结合,他警告说,不要将这种联系归因于维柯本人,因为这意味着将后来的经验和知识状态纳入他的理论。