怀特海的早期哈佛时期,哈茨霍恩和超验计划

G. Shields
{"title":"怀特海的早期哈佛时期,哈茨霍恩和超验计划","authors":"G. Shields","doi":"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474461351.003.0013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this chapter, George Shields compares Whitehead’s Harvard lectures to the philosophy of Charles Hartshorne, arguing that the two are united in defending the possibility of a ‘transcendental project’ and an ‘ontological approach’. The chapter argues that for both philosophers, ‘something exists’ is a necessary postulate, ontology precedes epistemology, that their critiques of Kant’s noumena are sound and their return to pre-Kantian modes of thought is justified, and that formal logic and mathematical analysis are wholly necessary in philosophy.","PeriodicalId":324412,"journal":{"name":"Whitehead at Harvard, 1924-1925","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Whitehead’s Early Harvard Period, Hartshorne and the Transcendental Project\",\"authors\":\"G. Shields\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/edinburgh/9781474461351.003.0013\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this chapter, George Shields compares Whitehead’s Harvard lectures to the philosophy of Charles Hartshorne, arguing that the two are united in defending the possibility of a ‘transcendental project’ and an ‘ontological approach’. The chapter argues that for both philosophers, ‘something exists’ is a necessary postulate, ontology precedes epistemology, that their critiques of Kant’s noumena are sound and their return to pre-Kantian modes of thought is justified, and that formal logic and mathematical analysis are wholly necessary in philosophy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":324412,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Whitehead at Harvard, 1924-1925\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Whitehead at Harvard, 1924-1925\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474461351.003.0013\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Whitehead at Harvard, 1924-1925","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9781474461351.003.0013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本章中,乔治·希尔兹将怀特黑德的哈佛讲座与查尔斯·哈茨霍恩的哲学进行了比较,认为两者在捍卫“先验计划”和“本体论方法”的可能性方面是一致的。这一章认为,对于两位哲学家来说,“某物存在”是一个必要的假设,本体论先于认识论,他们对康德本体的批判是正确的,他们回到康德以前的思维方式是有道理的,并且形式逻辑和数学分析在哲学中是完全必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Whitehead’s Early Harvard Period, Hartshorne and the Transcendental Project
In this chapter, George Shields compares Whitehead’s Harvard lectures to the philosophy of Charles Hartshorne, arguing that the two are united in defending the possibility of a ‘transcendental project’ and an ‘ontological approach’. The chapter argues that for both philosophers, ‘something exists’ is a necessary postulate, ontology precedes epistemology, that their critiques of Kant’s noumena are sound and their return to pre-Kantian modes of thought is justified, and that formal logic and mathematical analysis are wholly necessary in philosophy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信