Случай, любовь и логика: философские очерки
- Язык:
- английский
- Статус:
- Полное произведение
- Авторство:
- Написано автором
- Состояние текста:
- Чистый текст
- Объём:
- ~92 800 слов · 441 фрагментов
Процитировать это произведение
- APAЧарльз Пирс. (n.d.). Случай, любовь и логика: философские очерки. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ru/works/charles-peirce/chance-love-and-logic-philosophical-essays
- MLAЧарльз Пирс. "Случай, любовь и логика: философские очерки." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/ru/works/charles-peirce/chance-love-and-logic-philosophical-essays.
- ChicagoЧарльз Пирс. Случай, любовь и логика: философские очерки. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ru/works/charles-peirce/chance-love-and-logic-philosophical-essays.
О чём это
«Случайность, любовь и логика»: философские очерки.
Контекст и история
Посмертный сборник (1923), сделавший Пирса доступным для публики. Здесь «Закрепление верования» и «Как сделать наши идеи ясными» — две статьи, в которых рождается прагматизм, — и космологические очерки о случайности как действительном свойстве вселенной. При жизни Пирс печатался мало и умер в бедности; признание пришло потом.
Редакционный контекст, а не источник для цитирования: в отличие от отрывков самого произведения, эти сведения нельзя проверить по корпусу.
Descartes is the father of modern philosophy, and the spirit of Cartesianism—that which principally distinguishes it from the scholasticism which it displaced—may be compendiously stated as follows: 1. It teaches that philosophy must begin with universal doubt; whereas scholasticism had never questioned fundamentals. 2. It teaches that the ultimate test of certainty is to be found in the individual consciousness; whereas scholasticism had rested on the testimony of sages and of the Catholic Church. 3. The multiform argumentation of the middle ages is replaced by a single thread of inference depending often upon inconspicuous premises. 4. Scholasticism had its mysteries of faith, but undertook to explain all created things. But there are many facts which Cartesianism not only does not explain but renders absolutely inexplicable, unless to say that “God makes them so” is to be regarded as an explanation. In some, or all of these respects, most modern philosophers have been, in effect, Cartesians. Now without wishing to return to scholasticism, it seems to me that modern science and modern logic require us to stand upon a very different platform from this. 1. We cannot begin with complete doubt. We must begin with all the prejudices which we actually have when we enter upon the study of philosophy. These prejudices are not to be dispelled by a maxim, for they are things which it does not occur to us can be questioned. Hence this initial skepticism will be a mere self-deception, and not real doubt; and no one who follows the Cartesian method will ever be satisfied until he has formally recovered all those beliefs which in form he has given up. It is, therefore, as useless a preliminary as going to the North Pole would be in order to get to Constantinople by coming down regularly upon a meridian.…
О чём Случай, любовь и логика: философские очерки?Кратко изложите содержание Случай, любовь и логика: философские очеркиКаковы ключевые идеи Случай, любовь и логика: философские очерки?
← Назад к Чарльз Пирс