{"title":"Bernard Bolzano and the Brentano school","authors":"D. G. Mironov","doi":"10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-1-39-53","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article defines the significance of Bolzano for the Brentano school and explores the sense in which Bolzano could have been an intermediary between late Scholasticism and the Brentano school. The first part of the article discusses the assessment of the Bolzano’s philosophical doctrine, which is offered by Brentano himself and his closest student Marty. Brentano found Bolzano’s pursuit of scientific philosophy commendable, but at the same time criticized him for platonism in the theory of meanings and for distinguishing the ways of being. Marty, continuing partly to criticize Bolzano, rather positively assessed his doctrine of propositions in themselves. Using the example of the doctrine of modifying adjectives, it is shown what influence Bolzano had on Marty’s philosophy of language. In the second part of the article, the question of Bolzano’s influence on K. Twardowski, A. Meinong and E. Husserl is considered. It is shown that each of these thinkers interpreted Bolzano's doctrine of propositions in themselves in different ways and at the same time not quite correctly. Bolzano’s doctrine of proposition structure is discussed separately and the evaluation of this doctrine proposed by Husserl is analyzed. Bolzano’s insufficient attention to the syntactic complexity of sentences, according to Husserl, was the reason that the Bohemian thinker did not propose a full-fledged theory of meaning and did not investigate the relationship between semantics and ontology. For other students of Brentano, Husserl’s assessment only confirmed that Bolzano did not pay due attention to linguistic synsemantics. The third part answers the question of Bolzano’s mediation between late Scholasticism and the Brentano school: the desire to defend the objectivity of truth and refute subjectivism unites such thinkers as S. Izquierdo and B. Bolzano, and it is on this basis that the continuity between late Scholasticism and the Brentano school can be traced.","PeriodicalId":41795,"journal":{"name":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Filosofskii Zhurnal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/2072-0726-2023-16-1-39-53","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 defines the significance of Bolzano for the Brentano school and explores the sense in which Bolzano could have been an intermediary between late Scholasticism and the Brentano school. The first part of the article discusses the assessment of the Bolzano’s philosophical doctrine, which is offered by Brentano himself and his closest student Marty. Brentano found Bolzano’s pursuit of scientific philosophy commendable, but at the same time criticized him for platonism in the theory of meanings and for distinguishing the ways of being. Marty, continuing partly to criticize Bolzano, rather positively assessed his doctrine of propositions in themselves. Using the example of the doctrine of modifying adjectives, it is shown what influence Bolzano had on Marty’s philosophy of language. In the second part of the article, the question of Bolzano’s influence on K. Twardowski, A. Meinong and E. Husserl is considered. It is shown that each of these thinkers interpreted Bolzano's doctrine of propositions in themselves in different ways and at the same time not quite correctly. Bolzano’s doctrine of proposition structure is discussed separately and the evaluation of this doctrine proposed by Husserl is analyzed. Bolzano’s insufficient attention to the syntactic complexity of sentences, according to Husserl, was the reason that the Bohemian thinker did not propose a full-fledged theory of meaning and did not investigate the relationship between semantics and ontology. For other students of Brentano, Husserl’s assessment only confirmed that Bolzano did not pay due attention to linguistic synsemantics. The third part answers the question of Bolzano’s mediation between late Scholasticism and the Brentano school: the desire to defend the objectivity of truth and refute subjectivism unites such thinkers as S. Izquierdo and B. Bolzano, and it is on this basis that the continuity between late Scholasticism and the Brentano school can be traced.
本文界定了博尔扎诺对布伦塔诺学派的意义,并探讨了博尔扎诺可能成为后期经院哲学与布伦塔诺学派之间的中间人的意义。文章的第一部分讨论了布伦塔诺本人和他最亲密的学生马蒂对博尔扎诺哲学学说的评价。布伦塔诺认为博尔扎诺对科学哲学的追求是值得赞赏的,但同时也批评他在意义论上的柏拉图主义和对存在方式的区分。马蒂,继续部分地批评博尔扎诺,相当积极地评价他的命题学说本身。以形容词修饰语为例,分析了博尔扎诺对马蒂语言哲学的影响。在文章的第二部分,考虑博尔扎诺对K. Twardowski, A. Meinong和E. Husserl的影响问题。结果表明,这些思想家各自以不同的方式阐释了博尔扎诺的命题学说,同时又不完全正确。本文分别讨论了博尔扎诺的命题结构学说,并分析了胡塞尔对博尔扎诺的命题结构学说的评价。胡塞尔认为,博尔扎诺对句子句法复杂性的关注不足,是这位波西米亚思想家没有提出完整的意义理论,也没有研究语义与本体论关系的原因。对于布伦塔诺的其他学生来说,胡塞尔的评价只是证实了博尔扎诺没有对语言的同义学给予应有的重视。第三部分回答了博尔扎诺在后期经院哲学和布伦塔诺学派之间的调解问题:捍卫真理的客观性和驳斥主观主义的愿望将S.伊兹基耶多和B.博尔扎诺等思想家团结在一起,并在此基础上追溯了后期经院哲学与布伦塔诺学派之间的连续性。