Mathematics First: Russell’s Methodological Response to Bradley

IF 0.5 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY ARCHIV FUR GESCHICHTE DER PHILOSOPHIE Pub Date : 2023-04-25 DOI:10.1515/agph-2022-0017
O. Spinney
{"title":"Mathematics First: Russell’s Methodological Response to Bradley","authors":"O. Spinney","doi":"10.1515/agph-2022-0017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article I examine the dispute between F. H. Bradley and Bertrand Russell concerning the reality of relations. I show that Bradley’s objections to Russell’s view, that there are such things as relations which serve to effect the unity of complex items, were rooted in a methodological approach which Russell did not share. On Bradley’s view, one must be able to offer reductive analyses of the items one postulates in order that commitment to those items be justified. I argue that Russell expressly rejected this methodological principle of Bradley’s, and instead adopted the view that one may justifiably postulate entities if doing so aids in the illumination of mathematical truths. I show that the postulation of relations does, on Russell’s view, serve to provide that illumination. Russell held that the truths of mathematics constitute fixed data, and that philosophical positions may be judged as successful according to the extent that they possess explanatory power with respect to this data. I argue that Bradley’s and Russell’s exchanges in print, as well as in private correspondence, reflect Russell’s awareness of a fundamental difference in methodological approach. I conclude that Russell elected not to answer Bradley’s objections on their own terms, but rather rejected the methodological assumptions from which those objections emerged.","PeriodicalId":44741,"journal":{"name":"ARCHIV FUR GESCHICHTE DER PHILOSOPHIE","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ARCHIV FUR GESCHICHTE DER PHILOSOPHIE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/agph-2022-0017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract In this article I examine the dispute between F. H. Bradley and Bertrand Russell concerning the reality of relations. I show that Bradley’s objections to Russell’s view, that there are such things as relations which serve to effect the unity of complex items, were rooted in a methodological approach which Russell did not share. On Bradley’s view, one must be able to offer reductive analyses of the items one postulates in order that commitment to those items be justified. I argue that Russell expressly rejected this methodological principle of Bradley’s, and instead adopted the view that one may justifiably postulate entities if doing so aids in the illumination of mathematical truths. I show that the postulation of relations does, on Russell’s view, serve to provide that illumination. Russell held that the truths of mathematics constitute fixed data, and that philosophical positions may be judged as successful according to the extent that they possess explanatory power with respect to this data. I argue that Bradley’s and Russell’s exchanges in print, as well as in private correspondence, reflect Russell’s awareness of a fundamental difference in methodological approach. I conclude that Russell elected not to answer Bradley’s objections on their own terms, but rather rejected the methodological assumptions from which those objections emerged.
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
数学第一:罗素对布莱德利的方法论回应
本文考察了f·h·布拉德利和伯特兰·罗素关于关系实在性的争论。我指出,布拉德利反对罗素的观点,即存在诸如关系之类的东西,以影响复杂项目的统一,这种观点植根于罗素所不认同的方法论方法。在布拉德利看来,一个人必须能够对他所假定的项目进行简化分析,以便证明对这些项目的承诺是合理的。我认为,罗素明确地拒绝了布拉德利的方法论原则,相反,他接受了这样一种观点:如果有助于阐明数学真理,人们可以合理地假设实体。我要说明的是,在罗素看来,关系的假设确实提供了这种启示。罗素认为,数学的真理构成了固定的数据,而哲学立场是否成功,可以根据它们对这些数据具有解释力的程度来判断。我认为,布拉德利和罗素在出版物以及私人通信中的交流,反映出罗素意识到方法论上的根本差异。我的结论是,罗素选择不以自己的方式回答布拉德利的反对意见,而是拒绝了产生这些反对意见的方法论假设。
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
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
25.00%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: The Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie [Archive for the History of Philosophy] is one of the world"s leading academic journals specializing in the history of philosophy. The Archiv publishes exceptional scholarship in all areas of western philosophy from antiquity through the twentieth century. The journal insists on the highest scholarly standards and values precise argumentation and lucid prose. Articles should reflect the current state of the best international research while advancing the field"s understanding of a historical author, school, problem, or concept. The journal has a broad international readership and a rich history.
期刊最新文献
Vassallo, Christian. The Presocratics at Herculaneum: A Study of Early Greek Philosophy in the Epicurean Tradition. Berlin / Boston: De Gruyter 2021, xxi + 763 pp. Boldyrev, Ivan and Stein, Sebastian (eds.). Interpreting Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit: Expositions and Critique of Contemporary Readings. New York / Abingdon: Routledge 2022, ix + 277 pp. Textor, Mark. The Disappearance of the Soul and the Turn against Metaphysics: Austrian Philosophy 1874–1918. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2021, xv + 386 pp. Proops, Ian. The Fiery Test of Critique: A Reading of Kant's Dialectic. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2021, xiv + 486 pp. ‘Left-Kantianism’ and the ‘Scientific Dispute’ between Rudolf Stammler and Hermann Cohen
×
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