C. S. Peirce on Jeremy Bentham: “A shallow logician” confined to analysis of “lower motives”

IF 0.6 3区 哲学 Q4 SOCIOLOGY THEORIA Pub Date : 2024-03-28 DOI:10.1111/theo.12515
Yanxiang Zhang
{"title":"C. S. Peirce on Jeremy Bentham: “A shallow logician” confined to analysis of “lower motives”","authors":"Yanxiang Zhang","doi":"10.1111/theo.12515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"C.S. Peirce offered an evaluation of Bentham's philosophy to the effect that on some points Bentham's performance was of great value, but essentially, he was ‘a shallow logician’ confined to analysis of ‘lower motive’. This paper argues that Bentham's logic is deeply metaphysically based, multi‐levelled, and comprehensive. There are at least three constituent parts in his utilitarian logic: the first is his ontology, with its distinction between real and fictitious entities, and with pain and pleasure constituting the core real entities; the second is his reductionism in, and analytical view of, simple and complex pleasures and pains; the third is the distinction between private ethics and public ethics. Bentham's logic is staunchly based on empiricism and truth and he developed a pragmatic utilitarian solution to overcome the potential impasse of Hume's scepticism through a mechanism of reflection. Even the doctrines of belief and abduction embraced and developed by Peirce are contained in Bentham's utilitarian logic. Bentham would certainly take Peirce's philosophy as ipse dixitism. Peirce was not in fact a serious reader of Bentham and failed to employ the distinction between argument and argumentation in his study of Bentham's logic.","PeriodicalId":44638,"journal":{"name":"THEORIA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"THEORIA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/theo.12515","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

C.S. Peirce offered an evaluation of Bentham's philosophy to the effect that on some points Bentham's performance was of great value, but essentially, he was ‘a shallow logician’ confined to analysis of ‘lower motive’. This paper argues that Bentham's logic is deeply metaphysically based, multi‐levelled, and comprehensive. There are at least three constituent parts in his utilitarian logic: the first is his ontology, with its distinction between real and fictitious entities, and with pain and pleasure constituting the core real entities; the second is his reductionism in, and analytical view of, simple and complex pleasures and pains; the third is the distinction between private ethics and public ethics. Bentham's logic is staunchly based on empiricism and truth and he developed a pragmatic utilitarian solution to overcome the potential impasse of Hume's scepticism through a mechanism of reflection. Even the doctrines of belief and abduction embraced and developed by Peirce are contained in Bentham's utilitarian logic. Bentham would certainly take Peirce's philosophy as ipse dixitism. Peirce was not in fact a serious reader of Bentham and failed to employ the distinction between argument and argumentation in his study of Bentham's logic.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
C.皮尔斯谈杰里米-边沁:"肤浅的逻辑学家",仅限于分析 "低级动机"
皮尔斯(C.S. Peirce)对边沁的哲学进行了评价,认为边沁在某些方面的表现具有重要价值,但从根本上说,他是一位 "肤浅的逻辑学家",仅限于分析 "低级动机"。本文认为,边沁的逻辑学具有深厚的形而上学基础、多层次性和综合性。他的功利主义逻辑至少有三个构成部分:第一部分是他的本体论,区分了真实实体和虚构实体,痛苦和快乐构成了核心的真实实体;第二部分是他对简单和复杂的快乐和痛苦的还原论和分析观;第三部分是对私人伦理和公共伦理的区分。边沁的逻辑坚定地建立在经验主义和真理的基础之上,他提出了一种实用主义的功利主义解决方案,通过反思机制来克服休谟怀疑论的潜在僵局。甚至皮尔斯所接受和发展的信念和诱导学说也包含在边沁的功利主义逻辑中。边沁肯定会把皮尔斯的哲学视为ipse dixitism。事实上,皮尔斯并没有认真阅读过边沁(Bentham)的著作,他在研究边沁的逻辑学时也没有区分论证和论据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
THEORIA
THEORIA SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: Since its foundation in 1935, Theoria publishes research in all areas of philosophy. Theoria is committed to precision and clarity in philosophical discussions, and encourages cooperation between philosophy and other disciplines. The journal is not affiliated with any particular school or faction. Instead, it promotes dialogues between different philosophical viewpoints. Theoria is peer-reviewed. It publishes articles, reviews, and shorter notes and discussions. Short discussion notes on recent articles in Theoria are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Validity of inferences and validity of demonstrations Prawitz's completeness conjecture: A reassessment On certainty, Left Wittgensteinianism and conceptual change Counterfactual power and genuine choice Whisper words of wisdom: Asides and appositives in Kaplan's logic of demonstratives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1