Bernard Williams zum methodischen Gebrauch der Philosophiegeschichte

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHISCHES JAHRBUCH Pub Date : 2015-01-01 DOI:10.5771/0031-8183-2015-1-76
Lena Robaszkiewicz
{"title":"Bernard Williams zum methodischen Gebrauch der Philosophiegeschichte","authors":"Lena Robaszkiewicz","doi":"10.5771/0031-8183-2015-1-76","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. Why should contemporary philosophers study philosophical texts of the past? Today, there are various answers to that question, but Bernard Williams was one of the first who has combined analytical and historical elements in his approach to it. Although several recent articles refer to Williams’ different remarks about the history of philosophy, his attitude has never been presented comprehensively. That desideratum will be fulfilled in this essay. In doing so, I will argue, firstly, that Williams rejects the position traditionally favoured by analytical philosophers because of his very different understanding of philosophy and, secondly, that the three different methods he suggests for studying the history of philosophy are compatible with each other.","PeriodicalId":42095,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHISCHES JAHRBUCH","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2015-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHISCHES JAHRBUCH","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5771/0031-8183-2015-1-76","RegionNum":4,"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. Why should contemporary philosophers study philosophical texts of the past? Today, there are various answers to that question, but Bernard Williams was one of the first who has combined analytical and historical elements in his approach to it. Although several recent articles refer to Williams’ different remarks about the history of philosophy, his attitude has never been presented comprehensively. That desideratum will be fulfilled in this essay. In doing so, I will argue, firstly, that Williams rejects the position traditionally favoured by analytical philosophers because of his very different understanding of philosophy and, secondly, that the three different methods he suggests for studying the history of philosophy are compatible with each other.
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
"伯纳德·威廉斯在方法上用哲学历史
摘要为什么当代哲学家要研究过去的哲学文本?今天,对这个问题有各种各样的答案,但伯纳德·威廉姆斯是第一个将分析和历史因素结合起来的人之一。尽管最近有几篇文章提到了威廉姆斯对哲学史的不同评论,但他的态度从未得到全面的呈现。这一愿望将在本文中实现。在此过程中,我将论证,首先,威廉姆斯拒绝了分析哲学家传统上所支持的立场,因为他对哲学的理解非常不同;其次,他提出的研究哲学史的三种不同方法是相互兼容的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Rainer Enskat, Urteil und Erfahrung. Kants Theorie der Erfahrung. Zweiter Teil The information society: cause for a philosophical paradigm shift? A response to Luciano Floridi Out of the Box – into the Green and the Blue. Comments on a Post-humanist Information Society Reflections on Floridi’s “The Green and the Blue: A New Political Ontology for a Mature Information Society” Are philosophical questions open? Some thoughts about Luciano Floridi’s conception of philosophy as conceptual design and his new political ontology
×
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