Did the Ancient Greeks Know the Difference Between Analytic and Synthetic Judgments? Discussion of a Question Posed in The Aetas Kantiana

IF 0.1 4区 哲学 0 RELIGION ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG Pub Date : 2022-06-15 DOI:10.3196/004433022835407113
Rogelio Rovira
{"title":"Did the Ancient Greeks Know the Difference Between Analytic and Synthetic Judgments? Discussion of a Question Posed in The Aetas Kantiana","authors":"Rogelio Rovira","doi":"10.3196/004433022835407113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a 1793 essay, J. Ch. Schwab claimed that Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments was already known to the Megarian philosopher Stilpo. Schwab's essay was criticised as early as 1794 by J. F. Ch. Gräffe. In a 1789 essay, J. A. Eberhard had also denied the\n originality of Kant's division of judgments and made certain indications suggesting that Aristotle was aware of the distinction. In this paper, I propose a fresh examination of why Schwab is wrong to attribute knowledge of Kant's division of judgments to Stilpo – a second look which,\n however, does not disregard Gräffe's contributions to the discussion. Second, I argue that, in a precise sense, Kant's division of judgments is indeed original, but that the analytic – synthetic distinction was nevertheless in a sense known to Aristotle. The assessment of these\n alleged precedents sheds light no only on the novelty of Kant's philosophical project but also on what may be called the \"the paradox of the discovery of an evident philosophical distinction\".","PeriodicalId":43672,"journal":{"name":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ZEITSCHRIFT FUR PHILOSOPHISCHE FORSCHUNG","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3196/004433022835407113","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"RELIGION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In a 1793 essay, J. Ch. Schwab claimed that Kant's distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments was already known to the Megarian philosopher Stilpo. Schwab's essay was criticised as early as 1794 by J. F. Ch. Gräffe. In a 1789 essay, J. A. Eberhard had also denied the originality of Kant's division of judgments and made certain indications suggesting that Aristotle was aware of the distinction. In this paper, I propose a fresh examination of why Schwab is wrong to attribute knowledge of Kant's division of judgments to Stilpo – a second look which, however, does not disregard Gräffe's contributions to the discussion. Second, I argue that, in a precise sense, Kant's division of judgments is indeed original, but that the analytic – synthetic distinction was nevertheless in a sense known to Aristotle. The assessment of these alleged precedents sheds light no only on the novelty of Kant's philosophical project but also on what may be called the "the paradox of the discovery of an evident philosophical distinction".
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
古希腊人知道分析判断和综合判断之间的区别吗?对《康德哲学》中一个问题的探讨
在1793年的一篇文章中,J.Ch.Schwab声称,康德对分析判断和综合判断的区分已经为伟大的哲学家Stilpo所知。施瓦布的文章早在1794年就受到了格拉夫的批评。在1789年的一篇文章中,J·a·埃伯哈德也否认了康德判断划分的独创性,并提出了一些迹象表明亚里士多德意识到了这种区别。在这篇论文中,我建议重新审视为什么施瓦布将康德判断划分的知识归因于斯蒂尔波是错误的——然而,第二次审视并没有忽视格拉夫对讨论的贡献。其次,我认为,在精确的意义上,康德的判断划分确实是独创的,但分析-综合的区别在亚里士多德已知的意义上是存在的。对这些所谓先例的评估不仅揭示了康德哲学项目的新颖性,也揭示了所谓的“发现明显哲学区别的悖论”。
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
0.30
自引率
33.30%
发文量
39
期刊介绍: Mit diesem Doppelheft beginnt die Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung ihren 50. Jahrgang. Ihre Gründung im Frühjahr 1946 verdankt sie einem glücklichen Zusammenwirken. Die Initiative eines Münchner Philosophen aus Bulgarien verbindet sich mit dem Sachverstand namhafter Professoren, die damals noch aus ganz Deutschland, nicht nur dem Westen kommen. Ob er sie "nur" als Autoren oder zusätzlich für den Beirat der Redaktion gewinnt - von Anfang an versichert sich Georgi Schischkoff der Mitarbeit fast aller großen Namen der Zeit. Zunächst sind es etwa der Philosoph und Pädagoge Friedrich Bollnow, der Platon-Forscher Ernst Hoffmann, der Philosoph und Psychologe Philipp Lersch und die Philosophen Walter Bröcker und Wilhelm Weischedel.
期刊最新文献
Ebenen des philosophischen Textverstehens und ihre lesestrategische Bedeutung Die Autorinnen und Autoren dieses Heftes Schopenhauer über Seinsgründe Logik und Geschlecht? Empirische Daten zu Logikeinführungen im Philosophiestudium an deutschen Universitäten1 Replik zu den Kommentaren
×
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