Analyses of Aristotle / Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers Bd.6 (PDF)
(Sprache: Englisch)
Aristotle thought of his logic and methodology as applications of the Socratic questioning method. In particular, logic was originally a study of answers necessitated by earlier answers. For Aristotle, thought-experiments were real experiments in the sense...
sofort als Download lieferbar
eBook (pdf)
219.99 €
- Lastschrift, Kreditkarte, Paypal, Rechnung
- Kostenloser tolino webreader
Produktdetails
Produktinformationen zu „Analyses of Aristotle / Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers Bd.6 (PDF)“
Aristotle thought of his logic and methodology as applications of the Socratic questioning method. In particular, logic was originally a study of answers necessitated by earlier answers. For Aristotle, thought-experiments were real experiments in the sense that by realizing forms in one's mind, one can read off their properties and interrelations. Treating forms as independent entities, knowable one by one, committed Aristotle to his mode of syllogistic explanation. He did not think of existence, predication and identity as separate senses of estin. Aristotle thus serves as an example of a thinker who did not rely on the distinction between the allegedly different Fregean senses, thereby shedding new light on our own conceptual presuppositions. This collection comprises several striking interpretations that Jaakko Hintikka has put forward over the years, constituting a challenge not only to Aristotelian scholars and historians of ideas, but to everyone interested in logic, epistemology or metaphysics and in their history.
Lese-Probe zu „Analyses of Aristotle / Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers Bd.6 (PDF)“
CHAPTER 6 ARISTOTELIAN AXIOMATICS AND GEOMETRICAL AXIOMATICS (p. 101-102)
Professor Szabo deserves credit for calling our attention to the interplay of philosophical and mathematical influences in the development of Greek axiomatics. It is this interplay that lends a special flavor to much of the early as well as some of the later history of the axiomatic method. I believe, however, that in the last analysis the total picture of the early development of axiomatics will turn out to be quite different from the one Szabo paints. My reasons for this belief are nevertheless subtler than one might first expect.
Professor Szabo finds the true ancestors of the central mathematical methodology of the Greeks, including the axiomatic method, in the Eleatic dialectic. In so doing, Szabo prima facie misses a large part of the interdisciplinary interplay with which he is dealing. Most other historians of the axiomatic method would give the pride of place on the philosophical side of the fence to Aristotle, who is sometimes called the first great theoretician of the axiomatic method and whose ideal of a science was by any account explicitly and self-consciously axiomatic. Szabo admittedly discusses Aristotle, but gives the Stagirite short shrift, dismissing him as having played no real part in the development of the axiomatic methods actually used in mathematics.
Even if one believes that Aristotles actual influence on mathematics was negligible, his views seem to merit close attention by all historians of the axiomatic method. The importance of these views lies of course in the fact that Aristotelian axiomatics is by far the most fully developed object of comparison on the philosophical side with the uses of axiomatic method in Greek mathematics. Szabo s procedure in downgrading Aristotles role might thus seem unfortunate. Isnt he throwing by the board one of the most important sources of the very development he is dealing with? It appears that
... mehr
some of Szabo s arguments for assigning Aristotle to the historical limbo he occupies in Szabo s story are in fact mistaken. Other pieces of evidence he presents are ambivalent, but not nearly as strong grounds for indicting Aristotle as Szabo seems to think.
Without trying to present an alternative total picture of the development of the axiomatic method, I will begin by presenting a number of corrections to Professor Szabo s account, mostly to what he says about Aristotle. All page references not otherwise specified will be to Arpad Szabo , The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1978 (translation of Anfange der griechischen Mathematik, R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munchen and Wien, 1969), or to Jaakko Hintikka, On the ingredients of an Aristotelian science, Nous 6 (1972), 5569 (Chapter 5 of the present volume). (i) Szabo claims (p. 188) that the nontechnical meaning of deiknymi as sichtbarmachen is relevant to mathematical and philosophical usage. This claim is made dubious by the fact that Aristotles use of deixis, deiknymi, and related terms is already quite sophisticated.
As usual, Aristotle is not consistent, and does not use strict technical terms. However, there is unmistakable contrast in Aristotle between deixis and apodeixis. (See Hintikka, sec. 2) Typically, the former could be used by Aristotle of all and sundry persuasive showings, while the latter was used of logical (syllogistic) inferences from appropriate permises. If further evidence is needed, one of the clearest examples of the Aristotelian distinction is found in An.
Without trying to present an alternative total picture of the development of the axiomatic method, I will begin by presenting a number of corrections to Professor Szabo s account, mostly to what he says about Aristotle. All page references not otherwise specified will be to Arpad Szabo , The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, 1978 (translation of Anfange der griechischen Mathematik, R. Oldenbourg Verlag, Munchen and Wien, 1969), or to Jaakko Hintikka, On the ingredients of an Aristotelian science, Nous 6 (1972), 5569 (Chapter 5 of the present volume). (i) Szabo claims (p. 188) that the nontechnical meaning of deiknymi as sichtbarmachen is relevant to mathematical and philosophical usage. This claim is made dubious by the fact that Aristotles use of deixis, deiknymi, and related terms is already quite sophisticated.
As usual, Aristotle is not consistent, and does not use strict technical terms. However, there is unmistakable contrast in Aristotle between deixis and apodeixis. (See Hintikka, sec. 2) Typically, the former could be used by Aristotle of all and sundry persuasive showings, while the latter was used of logical (syllogistic) inferences from appropriate permises. If further evidence is needed, one of the clearest examples of the Aristotelian distinction is found in An.
... weniger
Autoren-Porträt von Jaakko Hintikka
Jaakko Hintikka is the author or co-author of thirty volumes and of some 300 scholarly articles in mathematical and philosophical logic, epistemology, language theory, philosophy of science, history of ideas and history of philosophy, including Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Kant, Peirce, The Bloomsbury Group, Husserl and Wittgenstein. He has also been active in international scholarly organizations, most recently as the First Vice-President of FISP, Vice-President of IIP and Co-Chair of the American Organizing Committee of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy. He has been Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal Synthese and the Managing Editor of Synthese Library since 1965.
Bibliographische Angaben
- Autor: Jaakko Hintikka
- 2006, 2004, 238 Seiten, Englisch
- Verlag: Springer Netherlands
- ISBN-10: 1402020414
- ISBN-13: 9781402020414
- Erscheinungsdatum: 11.04.2006
Abhängig von Bildschirmgröße und eingestellter Schriftgröße kann die Seitenzahl auf Ihrem Lesegerät variieren.
eBook Informationen
- Dateiformat: PDF
- Größe: 1.28 MB
- Ohne Kopierschutz
- Vorlesefunktion
Sprache:
Englisch
Kommentar zu "Analyses of Aristotle / Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers Bd.6"
Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar zu "Analyses of Aristotle / Jaakko Hintikka Selected Papers Bd.6".
Kommentar verfassen