Joachim Jung's Philosophia protonoetica. To the problem of establishing methodological principles of Modern philosophy

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Sententiae Pub Date : 2023-12-31 DOI:10.31649/sent05.01.010
Sergii Secundant
{"title":"Joachim Jung's Philosophia protonoetica. To the problem of establishing methodological principles of Modern philosophy","authors":"Sergii Secundant","doi":"10.31649/sent05.01.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the programme of reforming the sciences and the way of philosophising proposed by Joachim Jung. Jung's positive endeavour was preceded by his critical work, which evokes to purify knowledge from preconceived ideas (doxa) and unreasonable premises. This thesis is directed against the scholastic «Doctrina Praedicamentorum». Jung rejects the claim of metaphysics and traditional logic as the foundation of the sciences. An important point of criticism is the distinction between reflexive (reflexiva) and direct (directa) sciences. Jung's positive methodological programme is based on mathematics, since it allows us to reach the last, indivisible elements. On their basis, it is possible to build a system of scientific knowledge that is as reliable and accurate as arithmetic. But the principles of the latter need to be substantiated. Thus, Jung comes to a new type of philosophy, «protonoethica». The article describes the German philosopher's methodological concept as «conceptual atomism». According to the author, Joachim Jung's achievements include the introduction of the concept of universal science (scientia universalis) into the early modern lexicon and the formation of those methodological principles that are later revealed by Descartes and Leibniz.","PeriodicalId":37673,"journal":{"name":"Sententiae","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sententiae","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31649/sent05.01.010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article discusses the programme of reforming the sciences and the way of philosophising proposed by Joachim Jung. Jung's positive endeavour was preceded by his critical work, which evokes to purify knowledge from preconceived ideas (doxa) and unreasonable premises. This thesis is directed against the scholastic «Doctrina Praedicamentorum». Jung rejects the claim of metaphysics and traditional logic as the foundation of the sciences. An important point of criticism is the distinction between reflexive (reflexiva) and direct (directa) sciences. Jung's positive methodological programme is based on mathematics, since it allows us to reach the last, indivisible elements. On their basis, it is possible to build a system of scientific knowledge that is as reliable and accurate as arithmetic. But the principles of the latter need to be substantiated. Thus, Jung comes to a new type of philosophy, «protonoethica». The article describes the German philosopher's methodological concept as «conceptual atomism». According to the author, Joachim Jung's achievements include the introduction of the concept of universal science (scientia universalis) into the early modern lexicon and the formation of those methodological principles that are later revealed by Descartes and Leibniz.
约阿希姆-荣格的《质子哲学》。关于确立现代哲学方法论原则的问题
文章讨论了约阿希姆-荣格提出的科学改革方案和哲学思考方式。荣格的积极努力源于他的批判性著作,该著作唤起人们净化知识,摒弃先入为主的观念(doxa)和不合理的前提。荣格的这篇论文针对的是学者的 "Doctrina Praedicamentorum"。荣格反对形而上学和传统逻辑学作为科学基础的主张。一个重要的批判点是反身科学(reflexiva)和直接科学(directa)之间的区别。荣格的积极方法论方案是以数学为基础的,因为数学能让我们找到最后的、不可分割的元素。在它们的基础上,我们有可能建立一个像算术一样可靠和准确的科学知识体系。但后者的原则需要得到证实。因此,荣格提出了一种新型哲学--"质子伦理学"。文章将这位德国哲学家的方法论概念描述为 "概念原子论"。作者认为,约阿希姆-荣格的成就包括将普遍科学(scientia universalis)的概念引入早期现代词典,并形成了后来由笛卡尔和莱布尼兹所揭示的方法论原则。
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
Sententiae
Sententiae Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊介绍: Sententiae is historico-philosophical open access journal. Journal created by Modern philosophy''s research group (Pascalian society). Founded in 2000. Published twice a year, in June and December. Our purpose is to foster the development of a wide gamut of contemporary approaches, active implementation of them into research practice, and establishment of high standards of teaching philosophy basing on the achievements of contemporary history of philosophy. Our key priority is to ensure the empirical substantiation of historico-philosophical conceptions, basing on the criteria of literality, exhaustivity, contextuality and taking into account the existing speculative interpretations. Jean-Luc Marion was the first to formulate this set of criteria in 1998 as the main features of contemporary researches of Descartes''s philosophy. We regard these principles as the methodological background of any substantiated research method in the history of philosophy. Publishing materials on all historico-philosophical topics, we pay special attention to researches in terminology, issues of philosophical translation and untranslatability, manuscript researches (including handwritten heritage of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy professors of ХVІІ–ХVІІІ century), and cover the development of large-scale projects in this area. We also publish new bilingual and commented Ukrainian translations of classical foreign philosophical texts. Among our priorities there is also a coverage of the history of philosophical thought in Ukraine and other Eastern European countries and its relations to the wider cultural context (theology, literature, natural sciences, political ideology etc). The content of each issue is distributed according to Genre Sections and Thematic Headings. Currently there are 10 Genre Sections.
×
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