08-31-2013, 10:34 AM
Rationalist نوشته: بین آنچه تاکنون من در این جستار از تعریف برتراند راسل برداشت نموده ام؛ و دیدگاه خودتان تفاوت هایی می بینید؟راستش من با این یکی تعریفی که راسل داده موافق ترم،یعنی تعریفش از فلسفه تحلیلی:
به گمانم نیک تر است که در ابتدا تعریف مشخص و دقیقی از "فلسفه" را در این جستار بدست آورده؛ وسپس به گفتگو پیرامون چیستی "منطق" و حوزه بررسی آن بپردازیم.
نقل قول:"Modern analytical empiricism [...] differs from that of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume by its incorporation of mathematics and its development of a powerful logical technique. It is thus able, in regard to certain problems, to achieve definite answers, which have the quality of science rather than of philosophy. It has the advantage, as compared with the philosophies of the system-builders, of being able to tackle its problems one at a time, instead of having to invent at one stroke a block theory of the whole universe. Its methods, in this respect, resemble those of science. I have no doubt that, in so far as philosophical knowledge is possible, it is by such methods that it must be sought; I have also no doubt that, by these methods, many ancient problems are completely solubleیعنی راسل در اصل خود فلسفه رو در مقابل دانش قرار نمیداده بلکه فلسفه تحلیلی رو به نوعی دارای نقاط اشتراک با دانش فرض میکرده.
To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace
Tacitus-
Tacitus-