Methodological arsenal of Aristotle and Kant. Categories

Emilia A. Taysina
{"title":"Methodological arsenal of Aristotle and Kant. Categories","authors":"Emilia A. Taysina","doi":"10.17673/vsgtu-phil.2023.4.11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The classical toolkit of philosophy includes, as a necessary basic “set”, certain general concepts, extremely abstract and deeply essential, which are called in Greek categories, and in Latin predicabiles, but more often — universals. Initially, Aristotle introduces the first ten such categories into his texts that further became canonic, in a small but very complex work of the same name. Up to the era of Modernity, his methodological arsenal served European philosophy with unfailing success. However, in the XVIII century, Immanuel Kant, sharply and definitely distinguishing rationality and reason unlike Aristotle, introduces the categories of logic not as abstractions, but as propositions systematically developed from a general principle: the ability, or faculty, of judgment. These approaches are very different: for example, in relation to concepts, — and Aristotle’s categories are precisely concepts, — the question of truth does not arise at all: it concerns only judgments. On the other hand, these approaches have something in common. Both philosophical systems in the field of gnoseology are formal-logical. Kant’s approach, dialectical in the study and explanation of the objective world, in terms of the theory of knowledge was not yet dialectical; or, it is believed rather, that this was negative-dialectical. In fact, this approach is intermediate, syntagmatic.","PeriodicalId":507508,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik of Samara State Technical University. Series Philosophy","volume":"74 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik of Samara State Technical University. Series Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17673/vsgtu-phil.2023.4.11","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 classical toolkit of philosophy includes, as a necessary basic “set”, certain general concepts, extremely abstract and deeply essential, which are called in Greek categories, and in Latin predicabiles, but more often — universals. Initially, Aristotle introduces the first ten such categories into his texts that further became canonic, in a small but very complex work of the same name. Up to the era of Modernity, his methodological arsenal served European philosophy with unfailing success. However, in the XVIII century, Immanuel Kant, sharply and definitely distinguishing rationality and reason unlike Aristotle, introduces the categories of logic not as abstractions, but as propositions systematically developed from a general principle: the ability, or faculty, of judgment. These approaches are very different: for example, in relation to concepts, — and Aristotle’s categories are precisely concepts, — the question of truth does not arise at all: it concerns only judgments. On the other hand, these approaches have something in common. Both philosophical systems in the field of gnoseology are formal-logical. Kant’s approach, dialectical in the study and explanation of the objective world, in terms of the theory of knowledge was not yet dialectical; or, it is believed rather, that this was negative-dialectical. In fact, this approach is intermediate, syntagmatic.
亚里士多德和康德的方法论武器库类别
哲学的经典工具包中,作为必要的基本 "集合",包含了某些极为抽象和深刻本质的一般概念,这些概念在希腊语中被称为范畴,在拉丁语中被称为 "predicabiles",但更常见的是被称为 "普遍性"。 最初,亚里士多德在他的文本中引入了最初的十个这样的范畴,这些范畴在一部小而复杂的同名著作中进一步成为经典。直到现代性时代,亚里士多德的方法论武库一直在为欧洲哲学服务。 然而,到了十八世纪,伊曼纽尔-康德与亚里士多德不同,明确而清晰地将理性与理智区分开来,他提出的逻辑学范畴不是抽象概念,而是从一般原则--判断的能力或能力--出发系统地发展出来的命题。这些方法截然不同:例如,就概念而言--亚里士多德的范畴正是概念--根本不存在真理问题:它只涉及判断。 另一方面,这些方法也有共同之处。这两种哲学体系在认识论领域都是形式逻辑的。 康德的方法是辩证地研究和解释客观世界,在知识论方面还不是辩证的;或者说,人们认为这是消极辩证的。事实上,这种方法是中间的、综合的。
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