論理学理論の研究
- 言語:
- 英語
- 状態:
- 完全な作品
- 著者性:
- 著者自身による
- テキストの状態:
- 良好なテキスト
- 分量:
- 約 140,000 語 · 684 節
この作品を引用
- APAジョン・デューイ. (n.d.). 論理学理論の研究. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/john-dewey/studies-in-logical-theory
- MLAジョン・デューイ. "論理学理論の研究." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/john-dewey/studies-in-logical-theory.
- Chicagoジョン・デューイ. 論理学理論の研究. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/john-dewey/studies-in-logical-theory.
何についての本か
一九〇三年の論集。デューイとシカゴの同僚たちが、思考をどう理解するかを示した。世界を映す鏡としてではなく、困難から抜け出すための道具として、である。
背景と歴史
デューイが四篇に署名し、残りは彼の学生たちのものだ。この書がのちに言われるプラグマティズムの「シカゴ学派」を作った。主張はこうだ。論理学が研究すべきは永遠の形式ではなく、現実の探究である。思考は、ある状況が問題含みになったときに始まり、仮説を立て、それを試し、状況がふたたび始末のつくものになったときに終わる。この筋書きにおける真理とは、対応ではなく、よく運ばれた探究の結果である。ウィリアム・ジェイムズはこの書をプラグマティズムの成熟として歓迎し、ラッセルはそこに知と行との混同を見た。議論は『実験論理学論集』へ続く。同書も本文庫にある。
これは編集上の背景であり、引用できる典拠ではありません。作品本文の一節とは異なり、これらの記述はコーパスで検証できません。
This volume presents some results of the work done in the matter of logical theory in the Department of Philosophy of the University of Chicago in the first decade of its existence. The eleven Studies are the work of eight different hands, all, with the exception of the editor, having at some period held Fellowships in this University, Dr. Heidel in Greek, the others in Philosophy. Their names and present pursuits are indicated in the Table of Contents. The editor has occasionally, though rarely, added a footnote or phrase which might serve to connect one Study more closely with another. The pages in the discussion of Hypothesis, on Mill and Whewell, are by him. With these exceptions, each writer is individually and completely responsible for his own Study. The various Studies present, the editor believes, about the relative amount of agreement and disagreement that is natural in view of the conditions of their origin. The various writers have been in contact with one another in Seminars and lecture courses in pursuit of the same topics, and have had to do with shaping one another's views. There are several others, not represented in this volume, who have also participated in the evolution of the point of view herein set forth, and to whom the writers acknowledge their indebtedness. The disagreements proceed from the diversity of interests with which the different writers approach the logical topic; and from the fact that the point of view in question is still (happily) developing and showing no signs of becoming a closed system. If the Studies themselves do not give a fair notion of the nature and degree of the harmony in the different writers' methods, a preface is not likely to succeed in so doing. A few words may be in place, however, about a matter repeatedly touched upon, but nowhere consecutively elaborated--the more ultimate philosophical bearing of what is set forth.…