segunda-feira, 15 de outubro de 2012
Filósofos - Um Guia dos 100 Pensadores Mais Importantes do Mundo
Table of Contents Related Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/19th-century_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_philosophy
Edition:
Editorial Estampa
To Buy:
Bertrand
Fnac
Wook
Marcadores:
books,
editorial estampa,
filósofos,
Peter J. King,
philosophy
Historia National Geographic - Especial nº 100
Cover Mag Related Info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutankhamun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantinople
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_George
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History
Mag Site:
http://www.historiang.com/
Marcadores:
historia national geographic,
history,
mags,
national geographic society,
RBA,
spanish mags
segunda-feira, 8 de outubro de 2012
Cosmic Limbo: Star Drained of Matter, Identity
It is not a planet. It is not a star. It
isn't even a brown dwarf, the name astronomers usually give an object that is
neither of the above. No, this strange ball of gas is no longer much of ...
anything.
The faraway object used to be a star. But
a companion sucked most of the matter from it, leaving a space corpse like
nothing scientists have seen before.
As with all "new" things in space, this
one is labeled a mystery, an object with an identity crisis of cosmic
proportions.
Too close for comfort
Some 500 million years ago, the star burned bright, researchers said yesterday. But it snuggled too close to a much more massive object, a compact star called a white dwarf that is also in the twilight of its existence.
The two-object death dance is known as a
binary system, called EF Eridanus. It is 300 light-years away.
The objects have always been close. They
used to orbit one another every four or five hours. But the interaction brought
them closer together over millions of years. Now their orbit is astonishingly
rapid -- every 81 minutes.
Both objects used to be similar to our
Sun, astronomers say.
The white dwarf is now about 60 percent as
massive as the Sun and has collapsed to a diameter about equal to that of
Earth.
The mystery object now contains a mere
1/20th as much material as the Sun
and is still inflated to roughly the same diameter as Jupiter, researchers said.
(The Sun is 1,000 times as massive as Jupiter.)
Class by itself
The donor star -- when it was still a star -- just "gave, and gave, and gave some more until it had nothing left to give," said Steve Howell, an astronomer with Wisconsin-Indiana-Yale-NOAO (WIYN) telescope and the National Optical Astronomy Observatory.
"Now the donor star has reached a dead
end," Howell said. "It is far too massive to be considered a super-planet, its
composition does not match known brown dwarfs, and it is far too low in mass to
be a star. There's no true category for an object in such limbo."
Astronomers don't know exactly when the
donor star began losing mass, or why the process has stopped, as the new
observations show. But Howell's team suspects the pair used to be farther apart.
They're now as close as the Moon is to Earth.
The discovery will be detailed in the Oct.
20 issue of the Astrophysical
Journal. The infrared observations were made primarily with the Gemini
North telescope and Keck II, two huge telescopes on Mauna Kea in Hawaii.
The researchers are now looking at 15
other binary systems that might be similar to the strange setup they've just
witnessed, with the hope of understanding the newfound object by
association.
Source Material: http://www.space.com/409-cosmic-limbo-star-drained-matter-identity.html
espacio - IO, LA LUNA DE FUEGO (Nº 89, Mayo 2012)
Mag Site:
http://www.grupov.es/administrador/asp/home_revista.asp?id_revista=14
Info Related:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ULAS_J1120%2B0641 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_Pictoris - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piscis_Austrinus - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-field_Infrared_Survey_Explorer - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGC_7027
Newton e a Mecânica Celeste (Newton et la Mécanique Céleste)
Info (more or less) On The Books Content:
Sir Isaac Newton PRS MP (25 December 1642 – 20 March 1727 [NS: 4 January 1643 – 31 March 1727])[1] was an English physicist, mathematician, astronomer, natural philosopher, alchemist and theologian, who has been "considered by many to be the greatest and most influential scientist who ever lived."[7] His monograph Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, published in 1687, lays the foundations for most of classical mechanics. In this work, Newton described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries. Newton showed that the motions of objects on Earth and of celestial bodies are governed by the same set of natural laws, by demonstrating the consistency between Kepler's laws of planetary motion and his theory of gravitation, thus removing the last doubts about heliocentrism and advancing the Scientific Revolution.
The Principia is generally considered to be one of the most important scientific books ever written, due, independently, to the specific physical laws the work successfully described, and for the style of the work, which assisted in setting standards for scientific publication down to the present time. Newton built the first practical reflecting telescope[8] and developed a theory of colour based on the observation that a prism decomposes white light into the many colours that form the visible spectrum. He also formulated an empirical law of cooling and studied the speed of sound. In mathematics, Newton shares the credit with Gottfried Leibniz for the development of differential and integral calculus. He also demonstrated the generalised binomial theorem, developed Newton's method for approximating the roots of a function, and contributed to the study of power series.
Newton, although an unorthodox Christian, was deeply religious, and wrote more on Biblical hermeneutics and occult studies than on science and mathematics. Newton secretly rejected Trinitarianism, and feared being accused of refusing holy orders.[9]
Mathematics
Newton's work has been said "to distinctly advance every branch of mathematics then studied".[19] His work on the subject usually referred to as fluxions or calculus, seen in a manuscript of October 1666, is now published among Newton's mathematical papers.[20] The author of the manuscript De analysi per aequationes numero terminorum infinitas, sent by Isaac Barrow to John Collins in June 1669, was identified by Barrow in a letter sent to Collins in August of that year as:[21]
Newton later became involved in a dispute with Leibniz over priority in the development of infinitesimal calculus. Most modern historians believe that Newton and Leibniz developed infinitesimal calculus independently, although with very different notations. Occasionally it has been suggested that Newton published almost nothing about it until 1693, and did not give a full account until 1704, while Leibniz began publishing a full account of his methods in 1684. (Leibniz's notation and "differential Method", nowadays recognised as much more convenient notations, were adopted by continental European mathematicians, and after 1820 or so, also by British mathematicians.) Such a suggestion, however, fails to notice the content of calculus which critics of Newton's time and modern times have pointed out in Book 1 of Newton's Principia itself (published 1687) and in its forerunner manuscripts, such as De motu corporum in gyrum ("On the motion of bodies in orbit"), of 1684. The Principia is not written in the language of calculus either as we know it or as Newton's (later) 'dot' notation would write it. But his work extensively uses an infinitesimal calculus in geometric form, based on limiting values of the ratios of vanishing small quantities: in the Principia itself Newton gave demonstration of this under the name of 'the method of first and last ratios'[22] and explained why he put his expositions in this form,[23] remarking also that 'hereby the same thing is performed as by the method of indivisibles'.Mr Newton, a fellow of our College, and very young ... but of an extraordinary genius and proficiency in these things.
Because of this, the Principia has been called "a book dense with the theory and application of the infinitesimal calculus" in modern times[24] and "lequel est presque tout de ce calcul" ('nearly all of it is of this calculus') in Newton's time.[25] His use of methods involving "one or more orders of the infinitesimally small" is present in his De motu corporum in gyrum of 1684[26] and in his papers on motion "during the two decades preceding 1684".[27]
Newton had been reluctant to publish his calculus because he feared controversy and criticism.[28] He was close to the Swiss mathematician Nicolas Fatio de Duillier. In 1691, Duillier started to write a new version of Newton's Principia, and corresponded with Leibniz.[29] In 1693 the relationship between Duillier and Newton deteriorated, and the book was never completed.
Starting in 1699, other members of the Royal Society (of which Newton was a member) accused Leibniz of plagiarism, and the dispute broke out in full force in 1711. The Royal Society proclaimed in a study that it was Newton who was the true discoverer and labelled Leibniz a fraud. This study was cast into doubt when it was later found that Newton himself wrote the study's concluding remarks on Leibniz. Thus began the bitter controversy which marred the lives of both Newton and Leibniz until the latter's death in 1716.[30]
Newton is generally credited with the generalised binomial theorem, valid for any exponent. He discovered Newton's identities, Newton's method, classified cubic plane curves (polynomials of degree three in two variables), made substantial contributions to the theory of finite differences, and was the first to use fractional indices and to employ coordinate geometry to derive solutions to Diophantine equations. He approximated partial sums of the harmonic series by logarithms (a precursor to Euler's summation formula), and was the first to use power series with confidence and to revert power series. Newton's work on infinite series was inspired by Simon Stevin's decimals.[31]
He was appointed Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in 1669 on Barrow's recommendation. In that day, any fellow of Cambridge or Oxford was required to become an ordained Anglican priest. However, the terms of the Lucasian professorship required that the holder not be active in the church (presumably so as to have more time for science). Newton argued that this should exempt him from the ordination requirement, and Charles II, whose permission was needed, accepted this argument. Thus a conflict between Newton's religious views and Anglican orthodoxy was averted.[32]
Optics
From 1670 to 1672, Newton lectured on optics.[34] During this period he investigated the refraction of light, demonstrating that a prism could decompose white light into a spectrum of colours, and that a lens and a second prism could recompose the multicoloured spectrum into white light.[35] Modern scholarship has revealed that Newton's analysis and resynthesis of white light owes a debt to corpuscular alchemy.[36]
He also showed that the coloured light does not change its properties by separating out a coloured beam and shining it on various objects. Newton noted that regardless of whether it was reflected or scattered or transmitted, it stayed the same colour. Thus, he observed that colour is the result of objects interacting with already-coloured light rather than objects generating the colour themselves. This is known as Newton's theory of colour.[37]
From this work, he concluded that the lens of any refracting telescope would suffer from the dispersion of light into colours (chromatic aberration). As a proof of the concept, he constructed a telescope using a mirror as the objective to bypass that problem.[38] Building the design, the first known functional reflecting telescope, today known as a Newtonian telescope,[38] involved solving the problem of a suitable mirror material and shaping technique. Newton ground his own mirrors out of a custom composition of highly reflective speculum metal, using Newton's rings to judge the quality of the optics for his telescopes. In late 1668[39] he was able to produce this first reflecting telescope. In 1671, the Royal Society asked for a demonstration of his reflecting telescope.[40] Their interest encouraged him to publish his notes On Colour, which he later expanded into his Opticks. When Robert Hooke criticised some of Newton's ideas, Newton was so offended that he withdrew from public debate. Newton and Hooke had brief exchanges in 1679–80, when Hooke, appointed to manage the Royal Society's correspondence, opened up a correspondence intended to elicit contributions from Newton to Royal Society transactions,[41] which had the effect of stimulating Newton to work out a proof that the elliptical form of planetary orbits would result from a centripetal force inversely proportional to the square of the radius vector (see Newton's law of universal gravitation – History and De motu corporum in gyrum). But the two men remained generally on poor terms until Hooke's death.[42]
Newton argued that light is composed of particles or corpuscles, which were refracted by accelerating into a denser medium. He verged on soundlike waves to explain the repeated pattern of reflection and transmission by thin films (Opticks Bk.II, Props. 12), but still retained his theory of 'fits' that disposed corpuscles to be reflected or transmitted (Props.13). Later physicists instead favoured a purely wavelike explanation of light to account for the interference patterns, and the general phenomenon of diffraction. Today's quantum mechanics, photons and the idea of wave–particle duality bear only a minor resemblance to Newton's understanding of light.
In his Hypothesis of Light of 1675, Newton posited the existence of the ether to transmit forces between particles. The contact with the theosophist Henry More, revived his interest in alchemy. He replaced the ether with occult forces based on Hermetic ideas of attraction and repulsion between particles. John Maynard Keynes, who acquired many of Newton's writings on alchemy, stated that "Newton was not the first of the age of reason: He was the last of the magicians."[43] Newton's interest in alchemy cannot be isolated from his contributions to science.[5] This was at a time when there was no clear distinction between alchemy and science. Had he not relied on the occult idea of action at a distance, across a vacuum, he might not have developed his theory of gravity. (See also Isaac Newton's occult studies.)
In 1704, Newton published Opticks, in which he expounded his corpuscular theory of light. He considered light to be made up of extremely subtle corpuscles, that ordinary matter was made of grosser corpuscles and speculated that through a kind of alchemical transmutation "Are not gross Bodies and Light convertible into one another, ...and may not Bodies receive much of their Activity from the Particles of Light which enter their Composition?"[44] Newton also constructed a primitive form of a frictional electrostatic generator, using a glass globe (Optics, 8th Query).
In an article entitled "Newton, prisms, and the 'opticks' of tunable lasers[45] it is indicated that Newton in his book Opticks was the first to show a diagram using a prism as a beam expander. In the same book he describes, via diagrams, the use of multiple-prism arrays. Some 278 years after Newton's discussion, multiple-prism beam expanders became central to the development of narrow-linewidth tunable lasers. Also, the use of these prismatic beam expanders led to the multiple-prism dispersion theory.[45]
Mechanics and gravitation
Further information: Writing of Principia Mathematica
In 1679, Newton returned to his work on (celestial) mechanics, i.e., gravitation and
its effect on the orbits of planets,
with reference to Kepler's laws of planetary motion. This
followed stimulation by a brief exchange of letters in 1679–80 with Hooke, who
had been appointed to manage the Royal Society's correspondence, and who opened
a correspondence intended to elicit contributions from Newton to Royal Society
transactions.[41]
Newton's reawakening interest in astronomical matters received further stimulus
by the appearance of a comet in the winter of 1680–1681, on which he
corresponded with John
Flamsteed.[46] After the
exchanges with Hooke, Newton worked out a proof that the elliptical form of
planetary orbits would result from a centripetal force inversely proportional to
the square of the radius vector (see Newton's law of
universal gravitation – History and De motu corporum in gyrum). Newton
communicated his results to Edmond Halley and to the Royal Society in De motu
corporum in gyrum, a tract written on about 9 sheets which was copied
into the Royal Society's Register Book in December 1684.[47] This tract
contained the nucleus that Newton developed and expanded to form the
Principia.
The Principia was published on 5 July 1687 with encouragement and financial help from Edmond Halley. In this work, Newton stated the three universal laws of motion that enabled many of the advances of the Industrial Revolution which soon followed and were not to be improved upon for more than 200 years, and are still the underpinnings of the non-relativistic technologies of the modern world. He used the Latin word gravitas (weight) for the effect that would become known as gravity, and defined the law of universal gravitation.
In the same work, Newton presented a calculus-like method of geometrical analysis by 'first and last ratios', gave the first analytical determination (based on Boyle's law) of the speed of sound in air, inferred the oblateness of the spheroidal figure of the Earth, accounted for the precession of the equinoxes as a result of the Moon's gravitational attraction on the Earth's oblateness, initiated the gravitational study of the irregularities in the motion of the moon, provided a theory for the determination of the orbits of comets, and much more.
Newton made clear his heliocentric view of the solar system – developed in a somewhat modern way, because already in the mid-1680s he recognised the "deviation of the Sun" from the centre of gravity of the solar system.[48] For Newton, it was not precisely the centre of the Sun or any other body that could be considered at rest, but rather "the common centre of gravity of the Earth, the Sun and all the Planets is to be esteem'd the Centre of the World", and this centre of gravity "either is at rest or moves uniformly forward in a right line" (Newton adopted the "at rest" alternative in view of common consent that the centre, wherever it was, was at rest).[49]
Newton's postulate of an invisible force able to act over vast distances led to him being criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science.[50] Later, in the second edition of the Principia (1713), Newton firmly rejected such criticisms in a concluding General Scholium, writing that it was enough that the phenomena implied a gravitational attraction, as they did; but they did not so far indicate its cause, and it was both unnecessary and improper to frame hypotheses of things that were not implied by the phenomena. (Here Newton used what became his famous expression Hypotheses non fingo).
With the Principia, Newton became internationally recognised.[51] He acquired a circle of admirers, including the Swiss-born mathematician Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, with whom he formed an intense relationship. This abruptly ended in 1693, and at the same time Newton suffered a nervous breakdown.[52]
Classification of cubics
Besides the work of Newton and others on calculus, the first important demonstration of the power of analytic geometry was Newton's classification of cubic curves in the Euclidean plane in the late 1600s. He divided them into four types, satisfying different equations, and in 1717 Stirling, probably with Newton's help, proved that every cubic was one of these four. Newton also claimed that the four types could be obtained by plane projection from one of them, and this was proved in 1731.[53]
Extracts Taken From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
The Principia was published on 5 July 1687 with encouragement and financial help from Edmond Halley. In this work, Newton stated the three universal laws of motion that enabled many of the advances of the Industrial Revolution which soon followed and were not to be improved upon for more than 200 years, and are still the underpinnings of the non-relativistic technologies of the modern world. He used the Latin word gravitas (weight) for the effect that would become known as gravity, and defined the law of universal gravitation.
In the same work, Newton presented a calculus-like method of geometrical analysis by 'first and last ratios', gave the first analytical determination (based on Boyle's law) of the speed of sound in air, inferred the oblateness of the spheroidal figure of the Earth, accounted for the precession of the equinoxes as a result of the Moon's gravitational attraction on the Earth's oblateness, initiated the gravitational study of the irregularities in the motion of the moon, provided a theory for the determination of the orbits of comets, and much more.
Newton made clear his heliocentric view of the solar system – developed in a somewhat modern way, because already in the mid-1680s he recognised the "deviation of the Sun" from the centre of gravity of the solar system.[48] For Newton, it was not precisely the centre of the Sun or any other body that could be considered at rest, but rather "the common centre of gravity of the Earth, the Sun and all the Planets is to be esteem'd the Centre of the World", and this centre of gravity "either is at rest or moves uniformly forward in a right line" (Newton adopted the "at rest" alternative in view of common consent that the centre, wherever it was, was at rest).[49]
Newton's postulate of an invisible force able to act over vast distances led to him being criticised for introducing "occult agencies" into science.[50] Later, in the second edition of the Principia (1713), Newton firmly rejected such criticisms in a concluding General Scholium, writing that it was enough that the phenomena implied a gravitational attraction, as they did; but they did not so far indicate its cause, and it was both unnecessary and improper to frame hypotheses of things that were not implied by the phenomena. (Here Newton used what became his famous expression Hypotheses non fingo).
With the Principia, Newton became internationally recognised.[51] He acquired a circle of admirers, including the Swiss-born mathematician Nicolas Fatio de Duillier, with whom he formed an intense relationship. This abruptly ended in 1693, and at the same time Newton suffered a nervous breakdown.[52]
Classification of cubics
Besides the work of Newton and others on calculus, the first important demonstration of the power of analytic geometry was Newton's classification of cubic curves in the Euclidean plane in the late 1600s. He divided them into four types, satisfying different equations, and in 1717 Stirling, probably with Newton's help, proved that every cubic was one of these four. Newton also claimed that the four types could be obtained by plane projection from one of them, and this was proved in 1731.[53]
Extracts Taken From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton
segunda-feira, 24 de setembro de 2012
Discurso do Método (Discours de la Méthode)
Info On This Great Work By René Descartes:
The Discourse on the Method is a philosophical and autobiographical treatise published by René Descartes in 1637. Its full name is Discourse on the Method of Rightly Conducting One's Reason and of Seeking Truth in the Sciences (French title: Discours de la méthode pour bien conduire sa raison, et chercher la vérité dans les sciences). The Discourse on Method is best known as the source of the famous quotation "Je pense, donc je suis" ("I think, therefore I am"), which occurs in Part IV of the work. (The similar statement in Latin, Cogito ergo sum, is found in §7 of Principles of Philosophy.)
The Discourse on the Method is one of the most influential works in the history of modern philosophy, and important to the evolution of natural sciences. In this work, Descartes tackles the problem of skepticism, which had previously been studied by Sextus Empiricus, Al-Ghazali[1] and Michel de Montaigne. Descartes modified it to account for a truth he found to be incontrovertible. Descartes started his line of reasoning by doubting everything, so as to assess the world from a fresh perspective, clear of any preconceived notions.
The book was originally published in Leiden, Netherlands. Later, it was translated into Latin and published in 1656 in Amsterdam. The book was intended as an introduction to three works Dioptrique, Météores and Géométrie. La Géométrie contains Descartes' first introduction of the Cartesian coordinate system.
Together with Meditations on First Philosophy (Meditationes de Prima Philosophia), Principles of Philosophy (Principia philosophiae) and Rules for the Direction of the Mind (Regulae ad directionem ingenii), it forms the base of the Epistemology known as Cartesianism.
Contents
- 1 Organization
- 1.1 Part I: various considerations touching the Sciences
- 1.2 Part II: the principal rules of the Method which the Author has discovered
- 1.3 Part III: Morals, and Maxims accepted while conducting Method
- 1.4 Part IV: Proof of God and the Soul
- 1.5 Part V: Physics, the heart, the soul of man and animals
- 1.6 Part VI
- 2 Influencing future science
- 3 References
Organization
The book is divided into six parts, described in the author's preface as
- Various considerations touching the Sciences
- The principal rules of the Method which the Author has discovered
- Certain of the rules of Morals which he has deduced from this Method
- The reasonings by which he establishes the existence of God and of the Human Soul
- The order of the Physical questions which he has investigated, and, in particular, the explication of the motion of the heart and of some other difficulties pertaining to Medicine, as also the difference between the soul of man and that of the brutes
- What the Author believes to be required in order to greater advancement in the investigation of Nature than has yet been made, with the reasons that have induced him to write
Part I: various considerations touching the Sciences
Descartes begins by allowing himself some wit:
Good sense is, of all things among men, the most equally distributed; for every one thinks himself so abundantly provided with it, that those even who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else, do not usually desire a larger measure of this quality than they already possess.In this he followed by Hobbes "But this proveth rather that men are in that point equal, than unequal. For there is not ordinarily a greater sign of the equal distribution of anything than that every man is contented with his share.".[2] He continues with a warning:
For to be possessed of a vigorous mind is not enough; the prime requisite is rightly to apply it. The greatest minds, as they are capable of the highest excellences, are open likewise to the greatest aberrations; and those who travel very slowly may yet make far greater progress, provided they keep always to the straight road, than those who, while they run, forsake it.[3]Descartes describes his disappointment with his education: as soon as I had finished the entire course of study... I found myself involved in so many doubts and errors, that I was convinced I had advanced no farther... than the discovery at every turn of my own ignorance.. He notes his special delight with mathematics, and contrasts its strong foundations to the disquisitions of the ancient moralists [which are] towering and magnificent palaces with no better foundation than sand and mud.
Part II: the principal rules of the Method which the Author has discovered
Descartes was in Germany, attracted thither by the wars in that country, and describes his intent by a "building metaphor". He observes that buildings, cities or nations that have been planned by a single hand are more elegant and commodious than those that have grown organically. He resolves not to build on old foundations, or to lean upon principles which, in his youth, he had taken upon trust.
Descartes seeks to ascertain the true method by which to arrive at the knowledge of whatever lay within the compass of his powers; he presents four precepts:
"The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.
The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution.
The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.
And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted."
There exists two theories which try to explain the origin of using 'x' as an unknown, (a highly standard/common usage in algebra).
"The first was never to accept anything for true which I did not clearly know to be such; that is to say, carefully to avoid precipitancy and prejudice, and to comprise nothing more in my judgment than what was presented to my mind so clearly and distinctly as to exclude all ground of doubt.
The second, to divide each of the difficulties under examination into as many parts as possible, and as might be necessary for its adequate solution.
The third, to conduct my thoughts in such order that, by commencing with objects the simplest and easiest to know, I might ascend by little and little, and, as it were, step by step, to the knowledge of the more complex; assigning in thought a certain order even to those objects which in their own nature do not stand in a relation of antecedence and sequence.
And the last, in every case to make enumerations so complete, and reviews so general, that I might be assured that nothing was omitted."
There exists two theories which try to explain the origin of using 'x' as an unknown, (a highly standard/common usage in algebra).
- The first theory says it came about during the printing of the appendix of "La Geometries". While the text was being typeset the printer ran short of certain letters in the alphabet and therefore used a single alternative for all of them.
- According to the second theory, the usage alludes to the Arabic root word “shei” which stands for the unknown.
Descartes uses the analogy of rebuilding a house from secure foundations, and
extends the analogy to the idea of needing a temporary abode while his own house
is being rebuilt. The following three maxims were adopted by Descartes so that
he could effectively function in the "real world" while experimenting with his
method of radical doubt. They formed a rudimentary belief system from which to
act before he developed a new system based on the truths he discovered using his
method.
- The first was to obey the laws and customs of my country, adhering firmly to the faith in which, by the grace of God, I had been educated from my childhood and regulating my conduct in every other matter according to the most moderate opinions, and the farthest removed from extremes, which should happen to be adopted in practice with general consent of the most judicious of those among whom I might be living.
- Be as firm and resolute in my actions as I was able
- Endeavor always to conquer myself rather than fortune, and change my desires rather than the order of the world, and in general, accustom myself to the persuasion that, except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power; so that when we have done our best in things external to us, our ill-success cannot possibly be failure on our part.
Part IV: Proof of
God and the Soul
Applying the method to itself, Descartes challenges his own reasoning and reason itself. But Descartes believes three
things are not susceptible to doubt and the three support each other to form a
stable foundation for the method. He cannot doubt that something has to be there
to do the doubting (I think, therefore I am). The method of doubt cannot doubt
reason as it is based on reason itself. By reason there exists a God and God is
the guarantor that reason is not misguided.
Perhaps the most strained part of the argument is the reasoned proof of the
existence of God and indeed Descartes seems to realize this as he supplies three
different 'proofs' including what is now referred to as the negotiable ontological proof
of the existence of God.
Part V: Physics, the heart, the soul of man and animals
Part V: Physics, the heart, the soul of man and animals
Here he describes how he in other writings discusses the idea of laws of
nature, of the sun and stars, the idea of the moon being the cause of ebb and
flood, on gravitation and going to discuss light and fire.
Describing his work on light, he states that he
He goes on to the motion of the blood in the heart and arteries, endorsing the findings of William Harvey though not by name, ascribing them to "a physician of England", but ascribing the motive power of the circulation to heat rather than muscle power. He describes that these motions seem to be totally independent of what we think, and concludes that our bodies are separate from our souls.
He does not seem to distinguish between mind, spirit and soul, which are identified as our faculty for rational thinking. Hence the term "I think, therefore I am". All three of these words (particularly "mind" and "soul") can be identified by the single French term âme.
Part VI
expounded at considerable length what the nature of that light must be which is found in the sun and the stars, and how thence in an instant of time it traverses the immense spaces of the heavens.His work on such physico-mechanical laws is, however, projected into a "new world". A theoretical place God created "somewhere in the imaginary spaces [with] matter sufficient to compose... [a "new world" in which He]... agitate[d] variously and confusedly the different parts of this matter, so that there resulted a chaos as disordered as the poets ever feigned, and after that did nothing more than lend his ordinary concurrence to nature, and allow her to act in accordance with the laws which he had established." He does this "to express my judgment regarding... [his subjects] with greater freedom, without being necessitated to adopt or refute the opinions of the learned". Descartes goes on to say that he "was not, however, disposed, from these circumstances, to conclude that this world had been created in the manner I described; for it is much more likely that God made it at the first such as it was to be." Despite this admission, it seems Descartes' project for understanding the world was that of re-creating creation - a cosmological project which aimed, through Descartes particular brand of experimental method, to show not merely the possibility of such a system, but to suggest that this way of looking at the world - one with (as Descartes saw it) no assumptions about God or nature - provided the only basis upon which he could see knowledge progressing (as he states in Book II). Thus, in Descartes work, we can see some of the fundamental assumptions of modern cosmology in evidence - the project of examing the historical construction of the universe through a set of quantitative laws describing interactions which would allow the ordered present to be constructed from a chaotic past.
He goes on to the motion of the blood in the heart and arteries, endorsing the findings of William Harvey though not by name, ascribing them to "a physician of England", but ascribing the motive power of the circulation to heat rather than muscle power. He describes that these motions seem to be totally independent of what we think, and concludes that our bodies are separate from our souls.
He does not seem to distinguish between mind, spirit and soul, which are identified as our faculty for rational thinking. Hence the term "I think, therefore I am". All three of these words (particularly "mind" and "soul") can be identified by the single French term âme.
Part VI
Descartes begins by noting, without directly referring to it, the recent
trial of Galileo for heresy and the condemnation of heliocentrism; and explains
that for these reasons he has been slow to publish.[4]
"I remarked, moreover, with respect to experiments, that they become always
more necessary the more one is advanced in knowledge; for, at the commencement,
it is better to make use only of what is spontaneously presented to our
senses"
"First, I have essayed to find in general the principles, or first causes of all that is or can be in the world"
Secure on these foundation stones, Descartes shows the practical application of 'The Method' in Mathematics and the Science.
Influencing future science
"First, I have essayed to find in general the principles, or first causes of all that is or can be in the world"
Secure on these foundation stones, Descartes shows the practical application of 'The Method' in Mathematics and the Science.
Influencing future science
The most important influence, however, was the first precept, which states,
in Descartes words,"[To] never to accept anything for true which I did not
clearly know to be such".
This method of pro-foundational skepticism is considered by some[who?]
to be the start of modern philosophy.
Quotations
Quotations
- I know how very liable we are to delusion in what relates to ourselves; and also how much the judgments of our friends are to be suspected when given in our favor.
- Of philosophy I will say nothing, except that when I saw that it had been cultivated for so many ages by the most distinguished men; and that yet there is not a single matter within its sphere which is still not in dispute and nothing, therefore, which is above doubt, I did not presume to anticipate that my success would be greater in it than that of others.
- ....And although my speculations greatly please myself, I believe that others have theirs, which perhaps please them still more.
- ...In what regards manners, everyone is so full of his own wisdom, that there might be as many reformers as heads...
- The first was to include nothing in my judgments than what presented itself to my mind so clearly and distinctly that I had no occasion to doubt it.
- ...I entirely abandoned the study of letters, and resolved no longer to seek any other science than the knowledge of myself, or of the great book of the world...
- The most widely shared thing in the world is good sense, for everyone thinks he is so well provided with it that even those who are the most difficult to satisfy in everything else do not usually desire to have more good sense than they have...
Edition: Europa-América
Marcadores:
books,
cogito ergo sum,
discourse on the method,
europa-américa,
philosophy,
rationalism,
René Descartes
Filosofia Analítica
General Info On Book's Content:
Analytic philosophy (sometimes analytical philosophy) is a generic term for a style of philosophy that came to dominate English-speaking countries in the 20th century. In the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Scandinavia, Australia, and New Zealand, the vast majority of university philosophy departments identify themselves as "analytic" departments.[1]
The term "analytic philosophy" can refer to:
A broad philosophical tradition[2][3] characterized by an emphasis on clarity and argument (often achieved via modern formal logic and analysis of language) and a respect for the natural sciences.[4][5][6]
The more specific set of developments of early 20th-century philosophy that were the historical antecedents of the broad sense: e.g., the work of Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, G. E. Moore, Gottlob Frege, and the logical positivists.
In this latter, narrower sense, analytic philosophy is identified with specific philosophical commitments (many of which are rejected by contemporary analytic philosophers), such as:
The logical positivist principle that there are not any specifically philosophical truths and that the object of philosophy is the logical clarification of thoughts. This may be contrasted with the traditional foundationalism, which considers philosophy as a special, elite science that investigates the fundamental reasons and principles of everything.[7] As a result, many analytic philosophers have considered their inquiries as continuous with, or subordinate to, those of the natural sciences.[8]
The principle that the logical clarification of thoughts can only be achieved by analysis of the logical form of philosophical propositions.[9] The logical form of a proposition is a way of representing it (often using the formal grammar and symbolism of a logical system) to display its similarity with all other propositions of the same type. However, analytic philosophers disagree widely about the correct logical form of ordinary language.[10]
The rejection of sweeping philosophical systems in favour of attention to detail,[11] or ordinary language.[12]
According to a characteristic paragraph by Bertrand Russell:
"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 soluble."[13]
Analytic philosophy is often understood in contrast to other philosophical traditions, most notably continental philosophy, and also Indian philosophy, Thomism, and Marxism.[14]
Contents
1 History
1.1 Ideal language analysis
1.2 Logical positivism
1.3 Ordinary language analysis
2 Contemporary analytic philosophy
2.1 Philosophy of mind and cognitive science
2.2 Ethics in analytic philosophy
2.2.1 Normative Ethics
2.2.2 Meta-Ethics
2.2.3 Applied Ethics
2.3 Analytic philosophy of religion
2.4 Political philosophy
2.4.1 Liberalism
2.4.2 Analytical Marxism
2.4.3 Communitarianism
2.5 Analytic metaphysics
2.6 Philosophy of language
2.7 Philosophy of science
2.8 Epistemology
2.9 Aesthetics
3 See also
4 Notes
5 References
6 Further reading
7 External links
History
Late 19th-century English philosophy was dominated by British idealism, as taught by philosophers such as F.H. Bradley and Thomas Hill Green. It was against this intellectual background that the founders of analytic philosophy, G. E. Moore and Bertrand Russell, articulated the program of early analytic philosophy.
Since its beginning, a basic principle of analytic philosophy has been conceptual clarity,[15] in the name of which Moore and Russell rejected Hegelianism, which they accused of obscurity and idealism.[16][17] Inspired by developments in modern logic, the early Russell claimed that the problems of philosophy can be solved by showing the simple constituents of complex notions.[15]
Russell, during his early career, along with collaborator Alfred North Whitehead, was much influenced by Gottlob Frege, who developed predicate logic, which allowed a much greater range of sentences to be parsed into logical form than was possible by the ancient Aristotlean logic. Frege was also an influencial philosopher of mathematics in Germany at the beginning of the 20th century. In contrast to Husserl's 1891 book Philosophie der Arithmetik, which attempted to show that the concept of the cardinal number derived from psychical acts of grouping objects and counting them,[18] Frege sought to show that mathematics and logic have their own validity, independent of the judgments or mental states of individual mathematicians and logicians (which were the basis of arithmetic according to the "psychologism" of Husserl's Philosophie). Frege further developed his philosophy of logic and mathematics in The Foundations of Arithmetic and The Basic Laws of Arithmetic where he provided an alternative to psychologistic accounts of the concept of number.
Like Frege, Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead attempted to show that mathematics is reducible to fundamental logical principles. Their Principia Mathematica (1910–1913) encouraged many philosophers to renew their interest with the development of symbolic logic. Additionally, Bertrand Russell adopted Frege's predicate logic as his primary philosophical method, a method he thought could expose the underlying structure of philosophical problems. For example, the English word “is” has three distinct meanings by predicate logic:
For the sentence 'the cat is asleep', the is of predication means that "x is P" (denoted as P(x))
For the sentence 'there is a cat', the is of existence means that "there is an x" (∃x);
For the sentence 'three is half of six', the is of identity means that "x is the same as y" (x=y).
Russell sought to resolve various philosophical issues by applying such definite distinctions, most famously in his analysis of definite descriptions in "On Denoting."[19]
Ideal language analysis
From about 1910 to 1930, analytic philosophers like Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein emphasized creating an ideal language for philosophical analysis, which would be free from the ambiguities of ordinary language that, in their opinion, often made philosophy invalid. This philosophical trend can be called "ideal-language analysis" or "formalism". During this phase, Russell and Wittgenstein sought to understand language, and hence philosophical problems, by using formal logic to formalize the way in which philosophical statements are made. Ludwig Wittgenstein developed a comprehensive system of logical atomism in his Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. He thereby argued that the world is the totality of actual states of affairs and that these states of affairs can be expressed by the language of first-order predicate logic. So a picture of the world can be made by expressing atomic facts as atomic propositions, and linking them using logical operators.
Logical positivism
Main article: Logical positivism
During the late 1920s, '30s, and '40s, Russell and Wittgenstein's formalism was developed by a group of philosophers in Vienna and Berlin, who were known as the Vienna Circle and Berlin Circle respectively, into a doctrine known as logical positivism (or logical empiricism). Logical positivism used formal logical methods to develop an empiricist account of knowledge.[20] Philosophers such as Rudolf Carnap and Hans Reichenbach, along with other members of the Vienna Circle, claimed that the truths of logic and mathematics were tautologies, and those of science were verifiable empirical claims. These two constituted the entire universe of meaningful judgments; anything else was nonsense. The claims of ethics, aesthetics and theology were, accordingly, pseudo-statements, neither true nor false, simply meaningless nonsense. Karl Popper's insistence upon the role of falsification in the philosophy of science was a reaction to the logical positivists.[21] With the coming to power of Adolf Hitler and National Socialism in Germany and Austria, many members of the Vienna and Berlin Circles fled Germany, most commonly to Britain and America, which helped to reinforce the dominance of logical positivism and analytic philosophy in the Anglophone countries.[22]
Logical positivists typically considered philosophy as having a very limited function. For them, philosophy concerned the clarification of thoughts, rather than having a distinct subject matter of its own. The positivists adopted the verification principle, according to which every meaningful statement is either analytic or is capable of being verified by experience. This caused the logical positivists to reject many traditional problems of philosophy, especially those of metaphysics or ontology, as meaningless.
Ordinary language analysis
Main article: Ordinary language philosophy
After World War II, during the late 1940s and 1950s, analytic philosophy took a turn toward ordinary-language analysis. This movement had two main strands. One followed in the wake of Wittgenstein's later philosophy, which departed dramatically from his early work of the Tractatus. The other, known as "Oxford philosophy", involved J. L. Austin. In contrast to earlier analytic philosophers (including the early Wittgenstein) who thought philosophers should avoid the deceptive trappings of natural language by constructing ideal languages, ordinary language philosophers claimed that ordinary language already represented a large number of subtle distinctions that had been unrecognized in the formulation of traditional philosophical theories or problems. While schools such as logical positivism emphasize logical terms, supposed to be universal and separate from contingent factors (such as culture, language, historical conditions), ordinary language philosophy emphasizes the use of language by ordinary people. Some have argued that ordinary language philosophy is of a more sociological grounding, as it essentially emphasizes on the use of language within social contexts. The best-known ordinary language philosophers during the 1950s were Austin and Gilbert Ryle. Some say[citation needed]that this movement marked a return to the common sense philosophy advocated by G.E. Moore.
Ordinary language philosophy often sought to disperse philosophical problems by showing them to be the result of misunderstanding ordinary language. See for example Ryle (who attempted to dispose of "Descartes' myth") and Wittgenstein, among others.
Contemporary analytic philosophy
Although contemporary philosophers who self-identify as "analytic" have widely divergent interests, assumptions, and methods—and have often rejected the fundamental premises that defined the analytic movement before 1960—analytic philosophy, in its contemporary state, is usually taken to be defined by a particular style[4] characterized by precision and thoroughness about a narrow topic, and resistance to "imprecise or cavalier discussions of broad topics."[23]
In the 1950s, logical positivism was influentially challenged by Wittgenstein in the Philosophical Investigations, Quine in "Two Dogmas of Empiricism", and Sellars in Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Following 1960, Anglophone philosophy began to incorporate a wider range of interests, views, and methods[citation needed]. Still, many philosophers in Britain and America still consider themselves to be "analytic philosophers."[1][4] Largely, they have done so by expanding the notion of "analytic philosophy" from the specific programs that dominated Anglophone philosophy before 1960 to a much more general notion of an "analytic" style, characterized by precision and thoroughness about a narrow topic and opposed to "imprecise or cavalier discussions of broad topics".[23] This interpretation of the history is far from universally accepted, and its opponents would say that it grossly downplays the role of Wittgenstein in the sixties and seventies.
Many philosophers and historians have attempted to define or describe analytic philosophy. Those definitions often include a focus on conceptual analysis: A.P. Martinich draws an analogy between analytic philosophy's interest in conceptual analysis and analytic chemistry, which "aims at determining chemical compositions."[24] Steven D. Hales described analytic philosophy as one of three types of philosophical method practiced in the West: "[i]n roughly reverse order by number of proponents, they are phenomenology, ideological philosophy, and analytic philosophy".[25]
Scott Soames agrees that clarity is important: analytic philosophy, he says, has "an implicit commitment—albeit faltering and imperfect—to the ideals of clarity, rigor and argumentation" and it "aims at truth and knowledge, as opposed to moral or spiritual improvement [...] the goal in analytic philosophy is to discover what is true, not to provide a useful recipe for living one's life". Soames also states that analytic philosophy is characterised by "a more piecemeal approach. There is, I think, a widespread presumption within the tradition that it is often possible to make philosophical progress by intensively investigating a small, circumscribed range of philosophical issues while holding broader, systematic questions in abeyance".[26]
A few of the most important and active fields and subfields in analytic philosophy are summarized in the following sections.
Philosophy of mind and cognitive science
Main article: Philosophy of mind
Motivated by the logical positivists' interest in verificationism, behaviorism was the most prominent theory of mind in analytic philosophy for the first half of the twentieth century.[citation needed] Behaviorists tended to hold either that statements about the mind were equivalent to statements about behavior and dispositions to behave in particular ways or that mental states were directly equivalent to behavior and dispositions to behave. Behaviorism later became far less popular, in favor of type physicalism or functionalism, theories that identified mental states with brain states. During this period, topics in the philosophy of mind were often in close contact with issues in cognitive science such as modularity or innateness. Finally, analytic philosophy has featured a few philosophers who were dualists, and recently forms of property dualism have had a resurgence, with David Chalmers as the most prominent representative.[27]
John Searle suggests that the obsession with linguistic philosophy of the last century has been superseded by an emphasis on the philosophy of mind,[28] in which functionalism is currently the dominant theory. In recent years, a central focus for research in the philosophy of mind has been consciousness. And while there is a general consensus for the global neuronal workspace model of consciousness,[29] there are many views as to how the specifics work out. The best known theories are Daniel Dennett's heterophenomenology, Fred Dretske and Michael Tye's representationalism, and the higher-order theories of either David M. Rosenthal—who advocates a higher-order thought (HOT) model—or David Armstrong and William Lycan—who advocate a higher-order perception (HOP) model. An alternative higher-order theory, the higher-order global states (HOGS) model, is offered by Robert van Gulick.[30]
Ethics in analytic philosophy
Main article: Ethics
Philosophers working in the analytic tradition have gradually come to distinguish three major branches of moral philosophy.
normative ethics whose function is the examination and production of normative ethical judgments
meta-ethics whose function is the investigation of moral terms and concepts,
applied ethics whose function is the investigation of how existing normative principles should be applied in difficult or borderline cases, often cases created by the appearance of new technologies or new scientific knowledge.
Normative Ethics
The first half of the twentieth century was marked by skepticism toward, and neglect of, normative ethics. Related subjects, such as social and political philosophy, aesthetics, and philosophy of history, moved to the fringes of English-language philosophy during this period.
During this time, utilitarianism was the only non-skeptical approach to ethics to remain popular. However, as the influence of logical positivism began to wane mid-century, contemporary analytic philosophers began to have a renewed interest in ethics. G.E.M. Anscombe’s 1958 Modern Moral Philosophy sparked a revival of Aristotle's virtue ethical approach and John Rawls’s 1971 A Theory of Justice restored interest in Kantian ethical philosophy. At present, contemporary normative ethics is dominated by three schools: utilitarianism, virtue ethics, and deontology.
Meta-Ethics
Twentieth-century meta-ethics has two roots. The first is G. E. Moore's investigation into the nature of ethical terms (e.g. good) in his Principia Ethica (1903), which identified the naturalistic fallacy. Along with Hume's famous is/ought distinction, the naturalistic fallacy was a central point of investigation for analytical philosophers.
The second is in logical positivism and its attitude that statements which are unverifiable are meaningless. Although that attitude was adopted originally as a means to promote scientific investigation of the world by rejecting grand metaphysical systems, it had the side effect of making (ethical and aesthetic) value judgments (as well as religious statements and beliefs) meaningless. But since value judgments are obviously of major importance in human life, it became incumbent on logical positivism to develop an explanation of the nature and meaning of value judgements. As a result, analytic philosophers avoided normative ethics, and instead began meta-ethical investigations into the nature of moral terms, statements, and judgments.
The logical positivists held that statements about value—including all ethical and aesthetic judgments—are non-cognitive; that is, they make no statements that can be objectively verified or falsified. Instead, the logical positivists adopted an emotivist position, which held that value judgments expressed the attitude of the speaker. Saying, "Killing is wrong", they thought, was equivalent to saying, "Boo to murder", or saying the word "murder" with a particular tone of disapproval.
While non-cognitivism was generally accepted by analytic philosophers, emotivism had many deficiencies, and evolved into more sophisticated non-cognitivist positions such as the expressivism of Charles Stevenson, and the universal prescriptivism of R. M. Hare, which had its foundations in J. L. Austin's philosophy of speech acts.
These positions were not without their critics. Phillipa Foot contributed several essays attacking all these positions. J. O. Urmson's article "On Grading" called the is/ought distinction into question.
As non-cognitivism, the is/ought distinction, and the naturalistic fallacy began to be called into question, analytic philosophers began to show a renewed interest in the traditional questions of moral philosophy. Perhaps most influential in this area was Elizabeth Anscombe, whose landmark monograph "Intention" was called by Donald Davidson "the most important treatment of action since Aristotle", and is widely regarded as a masterpiece of moral psychology. A favorite student and close friend of Ludwig Wittgenstein, her 1958 article "Modern Moral Philosophy" introduced the term "consequentialism" into the philosophical lexicon, declared the "is-ought" impasse to be a dead end, and led to a revival in virtue ethics.
Applied Ethics
A significant feature of analytic philosophy since approximately 1970 has been the emergence of applied ethics—an interest in the application of moral principles to specific practical issues.
Areas of special interest for applied ethics include environmental issues, animal rights issues, and the many challenges created by advancing medical science.[31][32][33]
Analytic philosophy of religion
Main article: Philosophy of religion
As with the study of ethics, early analytic philosophy tended to avoid the study of philosophy of religion, largely dismissing (as per the logical positivists view) the subject as part of metaphysics and therefore meaningless.[34] The collapse of logical positivism renewed interest in philosophy of religion, prompting philosophers like William Alston, John Mackie, Alvin Plantinga, Robert Merrihew Adams, Richard Swinburne, and Antony Flew not only to introduce new problems, but to re-open classical topics such as the nature of miracles, theistic arguments, the problem of evil, (see existence of God) the rationality of belief in God, concepts of the nature of God, and many more.[35]
Plantinga, Mackie and Flew debated the logical validity of the free will defense as a way to solve the problem of evil.[36] Alston, grappling with the consequences of analytic philosophy of language, worked on the nature of religious language. Adams worked on the relationship of faith and morality.[37] Analytic epistemology and metaphysics has formed the basis for a number of philosophically-sophisticated theistic arguments, like those of the reformed epistemologists like Plantinga.
Analytic philosophy of religion has also been preoccupied with Ludwig Wittgenstein, as well as his interpretation of Søren Kierkegaard's philosophy of religion.[38] Using first-hand remarks (which was later published in Philosophical Investigations, Culture and Value, and other works), philosophers such as Peter Winch and Norman Malcolm developed what has come to be known as contemplative philosophy, a Wittgensteinian school of thought rooted in the "Swansea tradition," and which includes Wittgensteinians such as Rush Rhees, Peter Winch and D. Z. Phillips, among others. The name "contemplative philosophy" was first coined by D. Z. Phillips in Philosophy's Cool Place, which rests on an interpretation of a passage from Wittgenstein's "Culture and Value."[39] This interpretation was first labeled, "Wittgensteinian Fideism," by Kai Nielsen but those who consider themselves Wittgensteinians in the Swansea tradition have relentlessly and repeatedly rejected this construal as caricature of Wittgenstein's considered position; this is especially true of D. Z. Phillips.[40] Responding to this interpretation, Kai Nielsen and D.Z. Phillips became two of the most prominent philosophers on Wittgenstein's philosophy of religion.[41]
Political philosophy
Liberalism
Current analytic political philosophy owes much to John Rawls, who in a series of papers from the 1950s onward (most notably "Two Concepts of Rules" and "Justice as Fairness") and his 1971 book A Theory of Justice, produced a sophisticated and closely argued defence of a liberalism in politics. This was followed in short order by Rawls's colleague Robert Nozick's book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, a defence of free-market libertarianism. Isaiah Berlin has had a notable influence on both analytic political philosophy and Liberalism with his lecture the Two Concepts of Liberty.
Recent decades have also seen the rise of several critiques of liberalism, including the feminist critiques of Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin, the communitarian critiques of Michael Sandel and Alasdair MacIntyre (though it should be noted both shy away from the term), and the multiculturalist critiques of Amy Gutmann and Charles Taylor. Although not an analytic philosopher, Jürgen Habermas is another important—if controversial—figure in contemporary analytic political philosophy, whose social theory is a blend of social science, Marxism, neo-Kantianism, and American pragmatism.
Consequentialist libertarianism also derives from the analytic tradition.
Analytical Marxism
Another development in the area of political philosophy has been the emergence of a school known as Analytical Marxism. Members of this school seek to apply the techniques of analytic philosophy, along with tools of modern social science such as rational choice theory to the elucidation of the theories of Karl Marx and his successors. The best-known member of this school is Oxford University philosopher G.A. Cohen, whose 1978 work, Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence is generally taken as representing the genesis of this school. In that book, Cohen applied the tools of logical and linguistic analysis to the elucidation and defense of Marx's materialist conception of history. Other prominent Analytical Marxists include the economist John Roemer, the social scientist Jon Elster, and the sociologist Erik Olin Wright. The work of these later philosophers have furthered Cohen's work by bringing to bear modern social science methods, such as rational choice theory, to supplement Cohen's use of analytic philosophical techniques in the interpretation of Marxian theory.
Cohen himself would later engage directly with Rawlsian political philosophy to advance a socialist theory of justice that stands in contrast to both traditional Marxism and the theories advanced by Rawls and Nozick. In particular, he points to Marx's principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Communitarianism
Communitarians such as Alasdair MacIntyre, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer and Michael Sandel advance a critique of Liberalism that uses analytic techniques to isolate the key assumptions of Liberal individualists, such as Rawls, and then challenges these assumptions. In particular, Communitarians challenge the Liberal assumption that the individual can be viewed as fully autonomous from the community in which he lives and is brought up. Instead, they push for a conception of the individual that emphasizes the role that the community plays in shaping his or her values, thought processes and opinions.
Analytic metaphysics
Main article: Metaphysics
One striking break with early analytic philosophy was the revival of metaphysical theorizing in the second half of the twentieth century. Philosophers such as David Kellogg Lewis and David Armstrong developed elaborate theories on a range of topics such as universals, causation, possibility and necessity, and abstract objects.
Among the developments that led to the revival of metaphysical theorizing were Quine's attack on the analytic-synthetic distinction, which was generally taken to undermine Carnap's distinction between existence questions internal to a framework and those external to it.[42]
Metaphysics remains a fertile area for research, having recovered from the attacks of A.J. Ayer and the logical positivists. And though many were inherited from previous decades, the debate remains fierce. The philosophy of fiction, the problem of empty names, and the debate over existence's status as a property have all risen out of relative obscurity to become central concerns, while perennial issues such as free will, possible worlds, and the philosophy of time have had new life breathed into them.[43][44]
Science has also played an increasingly significant role in metaphysics. The theory of special relativity has had a profound effect on the philosophy of time, and quantum physics is routinely discussed in the free will debate.[45] The weight given to scientific evidence is largely due to widespread commitments among philosophers to scientific realism and naturalism.
Philosophy of language
Main article: Philosophy of language
Philosophy of language is another area that has slowed down over the course of the last four decades, as evidenced by the fact that few major figures in contemporary philosophy treat it as a primary research area. Indeed, while the debate remains fierce, it is still strongly under the influence of those figures from the first half of the century: Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, Ludwig Wittgenstein, J.L. Austin, Alfred Tarski, and W.V.O. Quine.
In Naming and Necessity, Kripke influentially argued that flaws in common theories of proper names are indicative of larger misunderstandings of the metaphysics of necessity and possibility. By wedding the tools of modal logic to a causal theory of reference, Kripke was widely regarded as reviving theories of essence and identity as respectable topics of philosophical discussion.
Philosophy of science
Main article: Philosophy of science
Reacting against the earlier philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper, who had suggested the falsifiability criterion on which to judge the demarcation between science and non-science, discussions in philosophy of science in the last forty years were dominated by social constructivist and cognitive relativist theories of science.[dubious – discuss] Thomas Samuel Kuhn is one of the major philosophers of science representative of the former theory, while Paul Feyerabend is representative of the latter theory. Philosophy of biology has also undergone considerable growth, particularly due to the considerable debate in recent years over evolution. Here again, Daniel Dennett and his 1995 book Darwin's Dangerous Idea stand at the foreground of this debate.[dubious – discuss]
Epistemology
Main article: Epistemology
Owing largely to Gettier's 1963 paper "Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?", epistemology saw a resurgence in analytic philosophy over the last 50 years. A large portion of current epistemological research aims to resolve the problems that Gettier's examples presented to the traditional justified true belief model of knowledge. Other areas of contemporary research include basic knowledge, the nature of evidence, the value of knowledge, epistemic luck, virtue epistemology, the role of intuitions in justification, and treating knowledge as a primitive concept.
Aesthetics
Main article: Aesthetics
In the wake of attacks on the traditional aesthetic notions of beauty and sublimity from post-modern thinkers, analytic philosophers were slow in taking on analyses of art and aesthetic judgment. Susanne Langer[46] and Nelson Goodman[47] addressed these problems in an analytic style in the 1950s and 60s. Rigorous efforts to pursue analyses of traditional aesthetic concepts were undertaken by Guy Sircello in the 1970s and 80s, resulting in new analytic theories of love,[48] sublimity,[49] and beauty.[50]
See also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postanalytic_philosophy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
Notes
1.^ a b "Without exception, the best philosophy departments in the United States are dominated by analytic philosophy, and among the leading philosophers in the United States, all but a tiny handful would be classified as analytic philosophers. Practitioners of types of philosophizing that are not in the analytic tradition—such as phenomenology, classical pragmatism, existentialism, or Marxism—feel it necessary to define their position in relation to analytic philosophy." John Searle (2003) Contemporary Philosophy in the United States in N. Bunnin and E.P. Tsui-James (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, 2nd ed., (Blackwell, 2003), p. 1.
2.^ See, e.g., Avrum Stroll, Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy (Columbia University Press, 2000), p. 5: "[I]t is difficult to give a precise definition of 'analytic philosophy' since it is not so much a specific doctrine as a loose concatenation of approaches to problems." Also, see ibid., p. 7: "I think Sluga is right in saying 'it may be hopeless to try to determine the essence of analytic philosophy.' Nearly every proposed definition has been challenged by some scholar. [...] [W]e are dealing with a family resemblance concept."
3.^ See Hans-Johann Glock, What Is Analytic Philosophy (Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 205: "The answer to the title question, then, is that analytic philosophy is a tradition held together both by ties of mutual influence and by family resemblances."
4.^ a b c Brian Leiter (2006) webpage “Analytic” and “Continental” Philosophy. Quote on the definition: "'Analytic' philosophy today names a style of doing philosophy, not a philosophical program or a set of substantive views. Analytic philosophers, crudely speaking, aim for argumentative clarity and precision; draw freely on the tools of logic; and often identify, professionally and intellectually, more closely with the sciences and mathematics, than with the humanities."
5.^ H. Glock, "Was Wittgenstein an Analytic Philosopher?", Metaphilosophy, 35:4 (2004), pp. 419–444.
6.^ Colin McGinn, The Making of a Philosopher: My Journey through Twentieth-Century Philosophy (HarperCollins, 2002), p. xi.: "analytical philosophy [is] too narrow a label, since [it] is not generally a matter of taking a word or concept and analyzing it (whatever exactly that might be). [...] This tradition emphasizes clarity, rigor, argument, theory, truth. It is not a tradition that aims primarily for inspiration or consolation or ideology. Nor is it particularly concerned with 'philosophy of life,' though parts of it are. This kind of philosophy is more like science than religion, more like mathematics than poetry – though it is neither science nor mathematics."
7.^ See Aristotle Metaphysics (Book II 993a), Kenny (1973) p. 230.
8.^ This is an attitude that begins with John Locke, who described his work as that of an "underlabourer" to the achievements of natural scientists such as Newton. During the twentieth century, the most influential advocate of the continuity of philosophy with science was Willard Van Orman Quine: see, e.g., his papers "Two Dogmas of Empiricism" and "Epistemology Naturalized".
9.^ A.P. Martinich, "Introduction," in Martinich & D. Sosa (eds.), A Companion to Analytic Philosophy (Blackwell, 2001), p. 1: "To use a general name for the kind of analytic philosophy practiced during the first half of the twentieth century, [...] 'conceptual analysis' aims at breaking down complex concepts into their simpler components."
10.^ Wittgenstein, op. cit., 4.111
11.^ Scott Soames, Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century Vol. 1 (Princeton UP, 2003), p. xv: "There is, I think, a widespread presumption within the tradition that it is often possible to make philosophical progress by intensively investigating a small, circumscribed range of philosophical issues while holding broader, systematic questions in abeyance. What distinguishes twentieth-century analytical philosophy from at least some philosophy in other traditions, or at other times, is not a categorical rejection of philosophical systems, but rather the acceptance of a wealth of smaller, more thorough and more rigorous, investigations that need not be tied to any overarching philosophical view." See also, e.g., "Philosophical Analysis" (catalogued under "Analysis, Philosophical") in Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Vol. 1 (Macmillan, 1967), esp. sections on "Bertrand Russell" at p. 97ff, "G.E. Moore" at p. 100ff, and "Logical Positivism" at p. 102ff.
12.^ See, e.g., the works of G.E. Moore and J.L. Austin.
13.^ A History of Western Philosophy (Simon & Schuster, 1945), p. 834.
14.^ A.C. Grayling (ed.), Philosophy 2: Further through the Subject (Oxford University Press, 1998), p. 2: "Analytic philosophy is mainly associated with the contemporary English-speaking world, but it is by no means the only important philosophical tradition. In this volume two other immensely rich and important such traditions are introduced: Indian philosophy, and philosophical thought in Europe from the time of Hegel." L.J. Cohen, The Dialogue of Reason: An Analysis of Analytical Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 1986), p. 5: "So, despite a few overlaps, analytical philosophy is not difficult to distinguish broadly [...] from other modern movements, like phenomenology, say, or existentialism, or from the large amount of philosophizing that has also gone on in the present century within frameworks deriving from other influential thinkers like Aquinas, Hegel, or Marx." H.-J. Glock, What Is Analytic Philosophy? (Cambridge University Press, 2008), p. 86: "Most non-analytic philosophers of the twentieth century do not belong to continental philosophy."
15.^ a b Mautner, Thomas (editor) (2005) The Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy, entry for 'Analytic philosophy, pp.22–3
16.^ See for example Moore's A Defence of Common Sense and Russell's critique of the Doctrine of internal relations,
17.^ "Analytic philosophy opposed right from its beginning English neo-Hegelianism of Bradley's sort and similar ones. It did not only criticize the latter's denial of the existence of an external world (anyway an unjust criticism), but also the bombastic, obscure style of Hegel's writings." Jonkers, Peter (2003). "Perspectives on Twentieth Century Philosophy:A Reply to Tom Rockmore". Ars Disputandi 3. ISSN 1566-5399. http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000129/article.pdf.
18.^ Willard, Dallas. "Husserl on a Logic that Failed". Philosophical Review 89 (1): 52–53.
19.^ Russell, Bertrand (1905). "On Denoting". Mind 14: 473–93. http://www.fh-augsburg.de/~harsch/anglica/Chronology/20thC/Russell/rus_deno.html.
20.^ Carnap, R. (1928). The Logical Structure of the World. ?.
21.^ Popper, Karl R. (2002). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-27844-9.
22.^ Important amongst these were Ludwig Wittgenstein and Rudolf Carnap. Karl Popper might also be included, since despite his rejection of the term his method is similar to the analytic tradition.
23.^ a b Analytic Philosophy [Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
24.^ A.P. Martinich, ed. (2001). A companion to analytic philosophy. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell. pp. 1–5. ISBN 0-631-21415-1.
25.^ Hales, Steven D. (2002). Analytic philosophy : classic readings. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. pp. 1–10. ISBN 0-534-51277-1.
26.^ Soames, Scott (2003). The dawn of analysis (2nd print., 1st paperb. print. ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press. pp. xiii-xvii. ISBN 0-691-11573-7.
27.^ Dualism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
28.^ Postrel and Feser, February 2000, Reality Principles: An Interview with John R. Searle at http://www.reason.com/news/show/27599.html
29.^ Dennett, Daniel C. (2001) "Are We Explaining Consciousness Yet?" Cognition 79 (1–2):221-37.
30.^ For summaries and some criticism of the different higher-order theories, see Van Gulick, Robert (2006) "Mirror Mirror—Is That All?" In Kriegel & Williford (eds.), Self-Representational Approaches to Consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. The final draft is also available here [1]. For Van Gulick's own view, see Van Gulick, Robert. "Higher-Order Global States HOGS: An Alternative Higher-Order Model of Consciousness." In Gennaro, R.J., (ed.) Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness: An Anthology. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
31.^ Brennan, Andrew and Yeuk-Sze Lo (2002). "Environmental Ethics" §2, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
32.^ Gruen, Lori (2003). "The Moral Status of Animals," in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
33.^ See Hursthouse, Rosalind (2003). "Virtue Ethics" §3, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Donchin, Anne (2004). "Feminist Bioethics" in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
34.^ (a notable exception is the series of Michael B. Forest's 1934–36 Mind articles involving the Christian doctrine of creation and the rise of modern science).
35.^ Peterson, Michael et al. (2003). Reason and Religious Belief
36.^ Mackie, John L. (1982). The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God
37.^ Adams, Robert M. (1987). The Virtue of Faith And Other Essays in Philosophical Theology
38.^ Creegan, Charles. (1989). Wittgenstein and Kierkegaard: Religion, Individuality and Philosophical Method
39.^ Phillips, D. Z. (1999). Philosophy's Cool Place. Cornell University Press. The quote is from Wittgenstein's Culture and Value (2e): "My ideal is a certain coolness. A temple providing a setting for the passions without meddling with them.
40.^ Fideism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
41.^ Nielsen, Kai and D.Z. Phillips. (2005). Wittgensteinian Fideism?
42.^ S. Yablo and A. Gallois, Does Ontology Rest on a Mistake?, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supplementary Volumes, Vol. 72, (1998), pp. 229-261+263-283 first part
43.^ Everett, Anthony and Thomas Hofweber (eds.) (2000), Empty Names, Fiction and the Puzzles of Non-Existence.
44.^ Van Inwagen, Peter, and Dean Zimmerman (eds.) (1998), Metaphysics: The Big Questions.
45.^ Ibid.
46.^ Susanne Langer, Feeling and Form: A Theory of Art (1953)
47.^ Nelson Goodman, Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1968. 2nd ed. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1976. Based on his 1960-61 John Locke lectures.
48.^ Guy Sircello, Love and Beauty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.
49.^ Guy Sircello "How Is a Theory of the Sublime Possible?" The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Autumn, 1993), pp. 541-550
50.^ Guy Sircello, A New Theory of Beauty. Princeton Essays on the Arts, 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975.
References
Aristotle, Metaphysics
Geach, P., Mental Acts, London 1957
Kenny, A.J.P., Wittgenstein, London 1973.
Analytic philosophy entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy by Aaron Preston
Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Further reading
The London Philosophy Study Guide offers many suggestions on what to read, depending on the student's familiarity with the subject: Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein
Dummett, Michael. The Origins of Analytical Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993.
Hirschberger, Johannes. A Short History of Western Philosophy, ed. Clare Hay. Short History of Western Philosophy, A. ISBN 978-0-7188-3092-2
Hylton, Peter. Russell, Idealism, and the Emergence of Analytic Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Soames, Scott. Philosophical Analysis in the Twentieth Century: Volume 1, The Dawn of Analysis. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003.
Passmore, John. A Hundred Years of Philosophy, revised ed. New York: Basic Books, 1966.
Weitz, Morris, ed. Twentieth Century Philosophy: The Analytic Tradition. New York: Free Press, 1966.
External links
Analytic philosophy entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/analytic/
Analytic philosophy entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/analysis/s6
Analytic philosophy at the Open Directory Project
http://www.dmoz.org/Society/Philosophy/Analytic_Philosophy/
Wikipedia Article Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy
More Info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottlob_Frege
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._E._Moore
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Circle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Van_Orman_Quine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Ayer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Ryle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._F._Strawson
Edition:
Gradiva
Bertrand
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)