Platonismo o psicologismo? La filosofia della logica di Lotze

Q3 Arts and Humanities
R. Martinelli
{"title":"Platonismo o psicologismo? La filosofia della logica di Lotze","authors":"R. Martinelli","doi":"10.5281/ZENODO.1209466","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract . When not ignored by scholars, Lotze’s logic is understood as an example of either psychologism or Platonism. As a matter of fact, despite his allowance for the topic of the origin of concepts, Lotze manages to avoid logical psychologism. At the same time, concepts cannot be said to have validity ( Geltung ) in the same way as propositions in themselves do: were this the case, one could actually ascribe Lotze a form of Platonism. Avoiding the crass dichotomy between realism and nominalism, Lotze works out a meticulous analysis of the relation between general concepts and our knowledge of reality, which is perfectly compliant with his teleological worldview.","PeriodicalId":37926,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Readings","volume":"10 1","pages":"159-165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Readings","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.1209466","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

Abstract . When not ignored by scholars, Lotze’s logic is understood as an example of either psychologism or Platonism. As a matter of fact, despite his allowance for the topic of the origin of concepts, Lotze manages to avoid logical psychologism. At the same time, concepts cannot be said to have validity ( Geltung ) in the same way as propositions in themselves do: were this the case, one could actually ascribe Lotze a form of Platonism. Avoiding the crass dichotomy between realism and nominalism, Lotze works out a meticulous analysis of the relation between general concepts and our knowledge of reality, which is perfectly compliant with his teleological worldview.
柏拉图主义还是唯心主义?Lotze的逻辑哲学
抽象的。在不被学者们忽视的情况下,Lotze的逻辑被理解为心理主义或柏拉图主义的一个例子。事实上,尽管罗策对概念的起源这个话题有所考虑,但他却设法避免了逻辑心理主义。同时,概念也不能像命题本身那样具有有效性,如果是这样的话,我们就可以把罗则看作是一种柏拉图主义。Lotze避免了实在论与唯名论的二元对立,对一般概念与我们对实在的认识之间的关系进行了细致的分析,这与他的目的论世界观是完全一致的。
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
Philosophical Readings
Philosophical Readings Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Philosophical Readings, a four-monthly journal, ISSN 2036-4989, features articles, discussions, translations, reviews, and bibliographical information on all philosophical disciplines. Philosophical Readings is a Open Access journal devoted to the promotion of competent and definitive contributions to philosophical knowledge. Not associated with any school or group, not the organ of any association or institution, it is interested in persistent and resolute inquiries into root questions, regardless of the writer’s affiliation. The journal welcomes also works that fall into various disciplines: religion, history, literature, law, political science, computer scnfoience, economics, and empirical sciences that deal with philosophical problems. Philosophical Readings uses a policy of blind review by at least two consultants to evaluate articles accepted for serious consideration. Philosophical Readings promotes special issues on particular topics of special relevance in the philosophical debates. Philosophical Readings occasionally has opportunities for Guest Editors for special issues of the journal. Anyone who has an idea for a special issue and would like that idea to be considered, should contact the Executive editor. Philosophical Readings publishes at least 9 original researches in a calendar year.
×
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