The Gay Science of Francis Bacon

Игорь Сергеевич Дмитриев
{"title":"The Gay Science of Francis Bacon","authors":"Игорь Сергеевич Дмитриев","doi":"10.5840/eps202057114","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article is the study of some aspects of the methodology of scientific knowledge that F. Bacon addressed in his treatise «New Organon» (1620) and in other works in one way or another related to his work on the project of the «Instauratio Magna Scientiarum». The article focuses on the following three questions: Bacon’s attitude to Aristotle’s legacy, the context of Bacon’s doctrine of idols and the reasons for the English philosopher to choose a fragmented (aphoristic) form of presentation of his ideas in the «New Organon» and in some other works. Based on an analysis of Bacon’s works related to the above project, it was shown that his statements about Aristotle and his philosophy were differentiated depending on whether the corresponding text was intended for printing or served as a working draft. In the latter case, the estimates of Aristotle by Bacon were more stringent. Baconian criticism of Aristotelianism was formed in the context of the development by the English philosopher of the doctrine of the idols of knowledge. The article shows that developing this doctrine, Bacon proceeded from the idea of ​​mass insanity of the human race (insania publica), which has ancient roots and was shared by a number of contemporaries of F. Bacon. At the same time, the latter considered Aristotle as the creator of «a kind of art of insanity (artemque quondam insaniae componere).» As a cure for «insania universalis,» Bacon proposed a new method (the «new organon») of cognition, and the presentation of his ideas in the form of separate, but conceptually related aphorisms, as a way of activating the reader’s thought process.","PeriodicalId":44031,"journal":{"name":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","volume":"57 1","pages":"181-201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5840/eps202057114","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Epistemology & Philosophy of Science-Epistemologiya i Filosofiya Nauki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/eps202057114","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article is the study of some aspects of the methodology of scientific knowledge that F. Bacon addressed in his treatise «New Organon» (1620) and in other works in one way or another related to his work on the project of the «Instauratio Magna Scientiarum». The article focuses on the following three questions: Bacon’s attitude to Aristotle’s legacy, the context of Bacon’s doctrine of idols and the reasons for the English philosopher to choose a fragmented (aphoristic) form of presentation of his ideas in the «New Organon» and in some other works. Based on an analysis of Bacon’s works related to the above project, it was shown that his statements about Aristotle and his philosophy were differentiated depending on whether the corresponding text was intended for printing or served as a working draft. In the latter case, the estimates of Aristotle by Bacon were more stringent. Baconian criticism of Aristotelianism was formed in the context of the development by the English philosopher of the doctrine of the idols of knowledge. The article shows that developing this doctrine, Bacon proceeded from the idea of ​​mass insanity of the human race (insania publica), which has ancient roots and was shared by a number of contemporaries of F. Bacon. At the same time, the latter considered Aristotle as the creator of «a kind of art of insanity (artemque quondam insaniae componere).» As a cure for «insania universalis,» Bacon proposed a new method (the «new organon») of cognition, and the presentation of his ideas in the form of separate, but conceptually related aphorisms, as a way of activating the reader’s thought process.
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
培根的同性恋科学
这篇文章是对F.Bacon在他的论文《新有机物》(1620)中以及以某种方式与他在《科学大宪章》项目中的工作相关的其他作品中所阐述的科学知识方法论的一些方面的研究。这篇文章集中讨论了以下三个问题:培根对亚里士多德遗产的态度,培根偶像主义的背景,以及这位英国哲学家在《新有机人》和其他一些作品中选择碎片化(格言式)表达其思想的原因。根据对培根与上述项目相关的作品的分析,可以看出,他关于亚里士多德及其哲学的陈述是有区别的,这取决于相应的文本是用于印刷还是用作工作草稿。在后一种情况下,培根对亚里士多德的估计更为严格。对亚里士多德主义的批判是在英国哲学家知识偶像主义发展的背景下形成的。这篇文章表明,在发展这一学说的过程中,培根从​​人类的大规模精神错乱(insania publica),它有着古老的根源,与F.培根同时代的许多人都有同感。同时,后者认为亚里士多德是一种精神错乱艺术的创造者。»作为治疗“普遍性精神错乱”的方法,培根提出了一种新的认知方法(“新器官”),并以单独但概念相关的格言的形式表达他的思想,作为激活读者思维过程的一种方式。
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
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Epistemology & Philosophy of Science is a quarterly peer-reviewed journal established in 2004 by the Institute of Philosophy (Russian Academy of Sciences). It is devoted to the themes in modern epistemology, philosophy of science, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind. The journal supports the policy of interdisciplinarity. It’s based on the belief that the comprehensive analysis of cultural phenomena couldn’t be completed without focusing on the problems of cognition. The epistemological analysis, however, needs the research results from human, social and natural sciences. Sections of the journal: 1.Editorial 2.Panel Discussion 3.Epistemology and Cognition 4.Language and Mind 5.Vista 6.Case Studies -Science Studies 7.Interdisciplinary Studies 8.Archive 9.Symposium 10.Book Reviews
期刊最新文献
К юбилею Владимира Натановича Поруса Памяти Александра Леонидовича Никифорова (28.04.1940 —29.09.2023) Language of Reality and Reality of Language in Francis Bacon’s Philosophy Francis Bacon and His Fate in the History and Philosophy of Science, 2010–2020 The Baconian Background of Hogben’s Scientific Humanism
×
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:604180095
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