Philosophy of biology. Is there still a need for philosophy?

IF 1.5 4区 生物学 Q4 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Theoretical Biology Forum Pub Date : 2013-01-01
Mario Graziano
{"title":"Philosophy of biology. Is there still a need for philosophy?","authors":"Mario Graziano","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In this paper we now focus on critically examining the theoretical and methodological conceptual foundations in the particular field of science of the living, namely the philosophy of biology. The latter seems to draw attention to two disparate disciplines in methods and scope of interest. On the one hand there seems to be a point of view that considers the cognitive phenomenon in question in a way so as to say \"abstract\", i.e. as something that seeks to determine the nature or essence, to use a term dear to many philosophers. On the other hand, there is a point of view that considers these phenomena in the actual place, the result of a process caused by the cognitive system of the subject, if the latter, of course, does not mean that they are human beings. We will argue that the two approaches do not represent two distinct planes of research: in fact philosophy takes on a main task, namely helping to lay the foundations for a philosophy of nature capable of meeting first a completeness, that is, to describe and explain what is special in all the different layers of the different natural systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":54453,"journal":{"name":"Theoretical Biology Forum","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Theoretical Biology Forum","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper we now focus on critically examining the theoretical and methodological conceptual foundations in the particular field of science of the living, namely the philosophy of biology. The latter seems to draw attention to two disparate disciplines in methods and scope of interest. On the one hand there seems to be a point of view that considers the cognitive phenomenon in question in a way so as to say "abstract", i.e. as something that seeks to determine the nature or essence, to use a term dear to many philosophers. On the other hand, there is a point of view that considers these phenomena in the actual place, the result of a process caused by the cognitive system of the subject, if the latter, of course, does not mean that they are human beings. We will argue that the two approaches do not represent two distinct planes of research: in fact philosophy takes on a main task, namely helping to lay the foundations for a philosophy of nature capable of meeting first a completeness, that is, to describe and explain what is special in all the different layers of the different natural systems.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生物学的哲学。还需要哲学吗?
在本文中,我们现在将重点放在批判性地考察生命科学特定领域的理论和方法概念基础,即生物学哲学。后者似乎在方法和兴趣范围上引起了人们对两个不同学科的注意。一方面,似乎有一种观点认为所讨论的认知现象是"抽象的",也就是说,用许多哲学家所喜爱的术语来说,它是一种寻求确定自然或本质的东西。另一方面,有一种观点认为,这些现象在实际的地方,是由主体的认知系统引起的过程的结果,如果后者,当然不意味着他们是人类。我们将论证,这两种方法并不代表两个不同的研究层面:事实上,哲学承担了一项主要任务,即帮助为一种能够首先满足完整性的自然哲学奠定基础,也就是说,描述和解释不同自然系统的所有不同层次中的特殊之处。
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
Theoretical Biology Forum
Theoretical Biology Forum 生物-生物学
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Editorial. The third-way third wave and the enduring appeal of bioexceptionalism. Origins and demise of selfish gene theory. Biological relativity revisited: the pre-eminent role of values. Evolution in two parts: as seen in a new fram ework for biology.
×
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