作为逻辑的形而上学

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
A. Strollo
{"title":"作为逻辑的形而上学","authors":"A. Strollo","doi":"10.4000/ESTETICA.3637","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Philosophy, and analytic metaphysics in particular, is usually described as an armchair discipline, and exactly for such an armchair methodology it has been the target of ferocious criticisms. In this paper, I argue that the theoretical right to conduct metaphysics from the armchair can be defended understanding metaphysics as a form of Logic (broadly understood as including applied logics, philosophical logics and, especially, philosophy of logic). So characterized, the typical practice of metaphysics is not more problematic than the armchair methodology routinely employed in the study of Logic.","PeriodicalId":53954,"journal":{"name":"Rivista di Estetica","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metaphysics as Logic\",\"authors\":\"A. Strollo\",\"doi\":\"10.4000/ESTETICA.3637\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Philosophy, and analytic metaphysics in particular, is usually described as an armchair discipline, and exactly for such an armchair methodology it has been the target of ferocious criticisms. In this paper, I argue that the theoretical right to conduct metaphysics from the armchair can be defended understanding metaphysics as a form of Logic (broadly understood as including applied logics, philosophical logics and, especially, philosophy of logic). So characterized, the typical practice of metaphysics is not more problematic than the armchair methodology routinely employed in the study of Logic.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53954,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rivista di Estetica\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rivista di Estetica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4000/ESTETICA.3637\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rivista di Estetica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4000/ESTETICA.3637","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

哲学,尤其是分析形而上学,通常被描述为一门纸上谈兵的学科,正是因为这种纸上谈机的方法论,它一直是猛烈批评的目标。在本文中,我认为在扶手椅上进行形而上学的理论权利可以被捍卫,将形而上学理解为一种逻辑形式(广泛理解为包括应用逻辑、哲学逻辑,尤其是逻辑哲学)。因此,形而上学的典型实践并不比逻辑学研究中经常使用的纸上谈兵的方法论更有问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Metaphysics as Logic
Philosophy, and analytic metaphysics in particular, is usually described as an armchair discipline, and exactly for such an armchair methodology it has been the target of ferocious criticisms. In this paper, I argue that the theoretical right to conduct metaphysics from the armchair can be defended understanding metaphysics as a form of Logic (broadly understood as including applied logics, philosophical logics and, especially, philosophy of logic). So characterized, the typical practice of metaphysics is not more problematic than the armchair methodology routinely employed in the study of Logic.
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
Rivista di Estetica
Rivista di Estetica PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
30 weeks
×
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