Off-campus access
Using PhilPapers from home?
Click here to configure this browser for off-campus access.
- Carlo Cellucci (2008). Why Still Philosophy. Chapter 1: The Heuristic View (and the Limitations of Analytic Philosophy). In Carlo Cellucci (ed.), Perché ancora la filosofia.The main characters of a philosophy meant as an activity which is not essentially different from science but deals with questions which go beyond the limits of present sciences are the following: 1) Philosophy is an investigation of the world. It is aimed at dealing with major issues and is justified only insofar as it deals with them. 2) Philosophy provides a global view, it is not limited to sectorial questions. So there cannot be a philosophy of mathematics alone, or physics alone, or biology alone, and so on. 3)Being an investigation about the world, philosophy aims at knowledge. Therefore questions about knowledge are central in philosophy. 4)Philosophy is continuous with sciences. Its objectives are not essentially different from those of sciences. 5)Philosophy makes use of results of sciences. This is not accessory to it, it is essential for its progress. 6)The method of philosophy is essentially the same as that of sciences. 7) Philosophy seeks new knowledge. Seeking new knowledge is part of its deepest nature. 8) Philosophy seeks new discovery methods. Seeking new knowledge, it also seeks new methods to obtain it. 9) Philosophy tries unexplored routes and, by so doing, it may even give origin to new sciences. Its greatest value consists in this. 10) Philosophy makes use of the experience of philosophers of the past. For this may help us to understand where certain ideas lead, avoiding us to try routes which have already revealed fruitless. 11) A conclusive solution of philosophical problems is impossible. Their solutions are always provisional and are bound to be replaced sooner or later by others. Progress exists everywhere, even in philosophy. 12) Philosophy has no specific field of its own, nor specific techniques of its own. But because it moves on an unexplored ground, it is at the same time always exposed to the risk of failure but also capable of surprising developments, originating new sciences.Reading list | Discuss | Edit | Categorize |My bibliography
| Export citation | Other links: cellucci.altervista.org | Scholar | At my library 
Similar books and articles
In recent years, even some of its own practitioners have accused analytic philosophy of lacking historical awareness. My aim is to show that analytic philosophy and history are not such a mismatch after all. Against the objection that analytic philosophers have unduly ignored the past I argue that for the most part they only resist strong versions of historicism, and for good reasons. The history of philosophy is not the whole of philosophy, as extreme historicists maintain, nor is it indispensable to substantive philosophizing, as mainline historicists have it, it is merely advantageous (pragmatic historicism). Against the objection that analytic histories of philosophy are inevitably anachronistic I argue that it is possible to approach past texts with a view to substantive issues and in a critical spirit (contrary to historicist relativism and to misguided interpretations of the principle of charity). Indeed, such an analytic approach makes not just for better philosophy but also for better history.
No categories
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: mind.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Other links: mind.oxfordjournals.org jstor.org dx.doi.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Finland is internationally known as one of the leading centers of twentieth century analytic philosophy. This volume offers for the first time an overall survey of the Finnish analytic school. The rise of this trend is illustrated by original articles of Edward Westermarck, Eino Kaila, Georg Henrik von Wright, and Jaakko Hintikka. Contributions of Finnish philosophers are then systematically discussed in the fields of logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, history of philosophy, ethics and social philosophy. Metaphilosophical reflections on the nature of philosophy are highlighted by the Finnish dialogue between analytic philosophy, phenomenology, pragmatism, and critical theory.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Scholar | At my library | More options ... For many philosophers of science, mathematics lies closer to logic than it does to the ordinary sciences like physics, biology and economics. While this view may account for the relative neglect of the philosophy of mathematics by philosophers of science, it ignores at least two pressing questions about mathematics that philosophers of science need to be able to answer. First, do the similarities between mathematics and science support the view that mathematics is, after all, another science? Second, does the central role of mathematics in science shed any light on traditional philosophical debates about science like scientific realism, the nature of explanation or reduction? When faced with these kinds of questions many philosophers of science have little to say. Unfortunately, most philosophers of mathematics also fail to engage with questions about the relationship between mathematics and science and so a peculiar isolation has emerged between philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics. In this introductory survey I aim to equip the interested philosopher of science with a roadmap that can guide her through the often intimidating terrain of contemporary philosophy of mathematics. I hope that such a survey will make clear how fruitful a more sustained interaction between philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics could be.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | More options ...
| | Scholar | More options ... Finland is internationally known as one of the leading centers of twentieth century analytic philosophy. This volume offers for the first time an overall survey of the Finnish analytic school. The rise of this trend is illustrated by original articles of Edward Westermarck, Eino Kaila, Georg Henrik von Wright, and Jaakko Hintikka. Contributions of Finnish philosophers are then systematically discussed in the fields of logic, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, history of philosophy, ethics and social philosophy. Metaphilosophical reflections on the nature of philosophy are highlighted by the Finnish dialogue between analytic philosophy, phenomenology, pragmatism, and critical theory.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Scholar | At my library | More options ... The philosophy of mathematics of the last few decades is usually distinguished into mainstream and maverick.1 The mainstream philosophy of mathematics considers mathematics as a static body of knowledge; it is mainly concerned with the question of the justification of mathematical knowledge; it holds that there is an absolutely certain, or at least fairly reliable, foundation for mathematics; it considers mathematical logic as a canon for the philosophy of mathematics; it assumes that a detailed account of mathematical practice would be desirable but not really essential; it generally sets itself within the framework of analytic philosophy. The maverick philosophy of mathematics considers mathematics as a dynamic body of knowledge; it is mainly concerned with the question of the growth of mathematical knowledge, including the dynamics of mathematical discovery; it holds that there is no absolutely certain foundation for mathematics; it considers mathematical logic very useful to show the limitations of the mainstream philosophy of mathematics by means of the limitative results, but inadequate to deal with the question of the growth of mathematical knowledge; it assumes that only a detailed analysis of mathematical practice could lead to a philosophy of mathematics worth its name; it generally sets itself outside the framework of analytic philosophy. The mainstream philosophy of mathematics consists of the three big foundational schools of the first few decades of the twentieth century, namely logicism (Frege, Russell), formalism (Hilbert), intuitionism (Brouwer, Heyting), and the positions which ensued from them in the second half of the twentieth..
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: w3.uniroma1.it | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Other links: w3.uniroma1.it | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Although in the past three decades interest in mathematical explanation revived, recent literature on the subject seems to neglect the strict connection between explanation and discovery. In this paper I sketch an alternative approach that takes such connection into account. My approach is a revised version of one originally considered by Descartes. The main difference is that my approach is in terms of the analytic method, which is a method of discovery prior to axiomatized mathematics, whereas Descartes’s approach is in terms of the analytic-synthetic method, which is a heuristic pattern in already axiomatized mathematics.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: linkinghub.elsevier.com w3.uniroma1.it dx.doi.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Other links: linkinghub.elsevier.com w3.uniroma1.it dx.doi.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ... When a distinction is drawn between “total” knowledge and “problem-specific” knowledge, it is seen that successful users of the recognition heuristic have more problem-specific knowledge than people unable to exploit this heuristic. So it is not ignorance that makes them smart, but knowledge.
No categories
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Scholar | At my library | More options ... This essay focuses on the extent to which the methods of analytic philosophy can be useful to feminist philosophers. I pose nine general questions feminist philosophers might ask to determine the suitability of a philosophical method. Examples include: Do its typical ways of formulating problems or issues encourage the inclusion of a wide variety of women's points of view? Are its central concepts gender-biased, not merely in their origin, but in very deep, continuing ways? Does it facilitate uncovering roles that gender, politics, power, and social context play in philosophy as well as in other facets of life?
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Scholar | At my library | More options ... If mathematics is regarded as a science, then the philosophy of mathematics can be regarded as a branch of the philosophy of science, next to disciplines such as the philosophy of physics and the philosophy of biology. However, because of its subject matter, the philosophy of mathematics occupies a special place in the philosophy of science. Whereas the natural sciences investigate entities that are located in space and time, it is not at all obvious that this is also the case with respect to the objects that are studied in mathematics. In addition to that, the methods of investigation of mathematics differ markedly from the methods of investigation in the natural sciences. Whereas the latter acquire general knowledge using inductive methods, mathematical knowledge appears to be acquired in a different way, namely, by deduction from basic principles. The status of mathematical knowledge also appears to differ from the status of knowledge in the natural sciences. The theories of the natural sciences appear to be less certain and more open to revision than mathematical theories. For these reasons mathematics poses problems of a quite distinctive kind for philosophy. Therefore philosophers have accorded special attention to ontological and epistemological questions concerning mathematics.
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Since the seventeenth century science has invaded many fields traditionally covered by philosophy, thus making the role of philosophy appear problematic. The answer to this new situation has not been unique. There have been both radical answers (e.g., Wittgenstein, Heidegger) and moderate answers (e.g., Husserl, Rorty). Such answers, however, are all inadequate for several reasons. This has lead several philosophers (e.g., Wittgenstein, Heidegger) and scientists (e.g., Hawking, Mullis) to claim that philosophy is dead and has dissolved into the sciences. An alternative answer is that philosophy is to be an activity which is not essentially different from sciences. The only difference with respect to sciences is that philosophy deals with questions which go beyond the limits of present sciences, namely questions the latter are unable to handle, and deals with them trying unexplored routes. By so doing, when it is successful, it may give origin to new sciences. To develop this kind of philosophy one must first deal with some questions concerning knowledge, namely: 1) the chimeras of knowledge (truth, objectivity, certainty, intuition, deduction, rigor, mind); 2) the statute of knowledge (what is the role of knowledge in human life, and generally in the life of all organisms?); 3) the means of knowledge (is there a rational way of acquiring new knowledge?), the fine texture of knowledge (e.g., the nature of explanation and generalization).
Reading list
| Discuss | Edit | Categorize | My bibliography | Export citation | Other links: cellucci.altervista.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ...
| | Other links: cellucci.altervista.org | Scholar | At my library | More options ... Discussion of Carlo Cellucci, Why Still Philosophy. Chapter 1: The Heuristic View (and the Limitations of Analytic Philosophy)
 Back
All discussions
Start a new thread
|
There are no threads in this forum |
Nothing in this forum yet.
