赫伯特-斯宾塞社会学中分析-综合方法的退化

Jan Maršálek
{"title":"赫伯特-斯宾塞社会学中分析-综合方法的退化","authors":"Jan Maršálek","doi":"10.1177/1468795x241268851","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In order to illustrate the degradation of a method, we will examine Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Sociology (1874–1898, three volumes). The analytic-synthetic method introduced into ‘civil philosophy’ by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century is chosen as the point of reference for the assessment of the status the analysis acquires in Spencer’s work. A comparison of the two editions of The Principles of Psychology reinforces our epistemological reading of a man who, despite his best efforts, could not rid himself of a method whose legitimacy he denied.","PeriodicalId":508225,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Classical Sociology","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The degradation of the analytic-synthetic method in Herbert Spencer’s sociology\",\"authors\":\"Jan Maršálek\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1468795x241268851\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In order to illustrate the degradation of a method, we will examine Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Sociology (1874–1898, three volumes). The analytic-synthetic method introduced into ‘civil philosophy’ by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century is chosen as the point of reference for the assessment of the status the analysis acquires in Spencer’s work. A comparison of the two editions of The Principles of Psychology reinforces our epistemological reading of a man who, despite his best efforts, could not rid himself of a method whose legitimacy he denied.\",\"PeriodicalId\":508225,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Classical Sociology\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Classical Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x241268851\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Classical Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1468795x241268851","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

为了说明方法的退化,我们将研究赫伯特-斯宾塞的《社会学原理》(1874-1898 年,三卷本)。我们选择托马斯-霍布斯(Thomas Hobbes)在 17 世纪引入 "公民哲学 "的分析-综合方法作为参照点,以评估分析在斯宾塞作品中获得的地位。对《心理学原理》两个版本的比较加强了我们对斯宾塞的认识论解读,尽管他尽了最大努力,但仍无法摆脱他否认其合法性的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The degradation of the analytic-synthetic method in Herbert Spencer’s sociology
In order to illustrate the degradation of a method, we will examine Herbert Spencer’s Principles of Sociology (1874–1898, three volumes). The analytic-synthetic method introduced into ‘civil philosophy’ by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century is chosen as the point of reference for the assessment of the status the analysis acquires in Spencer’s work. A comparison of the two editions of The Principles of Psychology reinforces our epistemological reading of a man who, despite his best efforts, could not rid himself of a method whose legitimacy he denied.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信