赫尔曼·科恩的数学哲学,或者马尔堡方法有什么问题

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY VOPROSY FILOSOFII Pub Date : 2023-02-08 DOI:10.21146/0042-8744-2023-2-27-41
A. Pertsev
{"title":"赫尔曼·科恩的数学哲学,或者马尔堡方法有什么问题","authors":"A. Pertsev","doi":"10.21146/0042-8744-2023-2-27-41","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Neo-Kantianism in general and the Marburg school are becoming an increas­ingly popular subject of research both in the Russian and global academic com­munity. Thanks to the meticulous archival work of H. Holzhey, K.Ch. Köhnke, U. Sieg and other scientists, rich historical and philosophical dimension of this phenomenon has been discovered. As a result, neo-Kantianism is no longer read strictly through the prism of an (unsuccessful) attempt to scientize philosophy in the image of natural scientific knowledge. At the same time, it seems interest­ing to analyze this attempt from the point of view of its internal content. The ob­ject of this study is mainly H. Cohen’s “Das Princip der Infinitesimal-Methode und seine Geschichte”, conjugated with the historical and theoretical context of psychological discussions. The term “Cohen’s method” in its early temporal localization of the beginning of the 1880’s, we expand to the “Marburg method”. It is based on a functional interpretation of the process of cognition using the ex­ample of infinitesimal calculus. Despite the declared opposition to the psycho­logical programs of philosophy, we believe that Cohen could not achieve this task at theoretical level. The intuitive definition of mathematical entities in gen­eral and the usage of a psychophysical mathematical model is an unsuccessful way of countering psychological programs of philosophy. At the same time, we believe that despite the outward exoticism of the philosopher’s conclusions, the desire to “dereify” and “denaturalize” the concept of reality finds full expression in his model, which is extremely important for the formation of the Marburg Neo-Kantianism. Reconstruction and comprehension of what we conditionally call \"the philosophy of mathematics of Hermann Cohen\" allows us to better un­derstand the essence of the theoretical superstructure that he created over the form of mathematical derivation.","PeriodicalId":46795,"journal":{"name":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hermann Cohen’s Philosophy of Mathematics, or What is Wrong with the Marburg Method\",\"authors\":\"A. Pertsev\",\"doi\":\"10.21146/0042-8744-2023-2-27-41\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Neo-Kantianism in general and the Marburg school are becoming an increas­ingly popular subject of research both in the Russian and global academic com­munity. Thanks to the meticulous archival work of H. Holzhey, K.Ch. Köhnke, U. Sieg and other scientists, rich historical and philosophical dimension of this phenomenon has been discovered. As a result, neo-Kantianism is no longer read strictly through the prism of an (unsuccessful) attempt to scientize philosophy in the image of natural scientific knowledge. At the same time, it seems interest­ing to analyze this attempt from the point of view of its internal content. The ob­ject of this study is mainly H. Cohen’s “Das Princip der Infinitesimal-Methode und seine Geschichte”, conjugated with the historical and theoretical context of psychological discussions. The term “Cohen’s method” in its early temporal localization of the beginning of the 1880’s, we expand to the “Marburg method”. It is based on a functional interpretation of the process of cognition using the ex­ample of infinitesimal calculus. Despite the declared opposition to the psycho­logical programs of philosophy, we believe that Cohen could not achieve this task at theoretical level. The intuitive definition of mathematical entities in gen­eral and the usage of a psychophysical mathematical model is an unsuccessful way of countering psychological programs of philosophy. At the same time, we believe that despite the outward exoticism of the philosopher’s conclusions, the desire to “dereify” and “denaturalize” the concept of reality finds full expression in his model, which is extremely important for the formation of the Marburg Neo-Kantianism. Reconstruction and comprehension of what we conditionally call \\\"the philosophy of mathematics of Hermann Cohen\\\" allows us to better un­derstand the essence of the theoretical superstructure that he created over the form of mathematical derivation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46795,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"VOPROSY FILOSOFII\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"VOPROSY FILOSOFII\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-2-27-41\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"VOPROSY FILOSOFII","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2023-2-27-41","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

摘要

新康德主义和马尔堡学派正在成为俄罗斯和全球学术界越来越受欢迎的研究主题。由于H.Holzhey、K.Ch.Köhnke、U.Sieg等科学家的细致档案工作,人们发现了这一现象丰富的历史和哲学维度。因此,新康德主义不再被严格地解读为试图以自然科学知识的形象将哲学科学化(不成功)的棱镜。同时,从其内在内容的角度来分析这一尝试似乎很有意思。本研究的对象主要是H.Cohen的《无限方法的原则》,结合心理学讨论的历史和理论背景。“科恩方法”一词在19世纪80年代初的早期时间定位中,我们扩展到了“马尔堡方法”。它是基于使用无穷小微积分的例子对认知过程的函数解释。尽管有人宣称反对哲学的心理咨询师计划,但我们认为科恩在理论层面上无法完成这项任务。对一般数学实体的直观定义和心理物理数学模型的使用是对抗哲学心理程序的一种不成功的方式。同时,我们认为,尽管哲学家的结论具有外在的异国情调,但他对现实概念的“去化”和“变性”的渴望在他的模型中得到了充分的表达,这对马尔堡新康德主义的形成极为重要。重建和理解我们有条件地称之为“赫尔曼·科恩的数学哲学”,使我们能够更好地理解他在数学推导形式上创造的理论上层建筑的本质。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Hermann Cohen’s Philosophy of Mathematics, or What is Wrong with the Marburg Method
Neo-Kantianism in general and the Marburg school are becoming an increas­ingly popular subject of research both in the Russian and global academic com­munity. Thanks to the meticulous archival work of H. Holzhey, K.Ch. Köhnke, U. Sieg and other scientists, rich historical and philosophical dimension of this phenomenon has been discovered. As a result, neo-Kantianism is no longer read strictly through the prism of an (unsuccessful) attempt to scientize philosophy in the image of natural scientific knowledge. At the same time, it seems interest­ing to analyze this attempt from the point of view of its internal content. The ob­ject of this study is mainly H. Cohen’s “Das Princip der Infinitesimal-Methode und seine Geschichte”, conjugated with the historical and theoretical context of psychological discussions. The term “Cohen’s method” in its early temporal localization of the beginning of the 1880’s, we expand to the “Marburg method”. It is based on a functional interpretation of the process of cognition using the ex­ample of infinitesimal calculus. Despite the declared opposition to the psycho­logical programs of philosophy, we believe that Cohen could not achieve this task at theoretical level. The intuitive definition of mathematical entities in gen­eral and the usage of a psychophysical mathematical model is an unsuccessful way of countering psychological programs of philosophy. At the same time, we believe that despite the outward exoticism of the philosopher’s conclusions, the desire to “dereify” and “denaturalize” the concept of reality finds full expression in his model, which is extremely important for the formation of the Marburg Neo-Kantianism. Reconstruction and comprehension of what we conditionally call "the philosophy of mathematics of Hermann Cohen" allows us to better un­derstand the essence of the theoretical superstructure that he created over the form of mathematical derivation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
VOPROSY FILOSOFII
VOPROSY FILOSOFII PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
100
期刊介绍: "Вопросы философии" - академическое научное издание, центральный философский журнал в России. В настоящее время является органом Президиума Российской Академии Наук. Журнал "Вопросы философии" исторически тесно связан с Институтом философии РАН. Выходит ежемесячно. Журнал был основан в июле 1947 г. Интернет-версия журнала запущена в мае 2009 года.
期刊最新文献
VIZGIN, Viktor P. (2021) Between Philosophy and Literature. Works of Different Years The Symbol of the Dragon in the Cosmogonic Schemes of Ancient China Kang Youwei, Buddhism and Catholicism. Kang Youwei, The Travelogue of Italy, Trans. from Chinese into Russian and Comm. by Dmitry E. Martynov А Man in The Space of Digital Culture On the Philosophy of Artificial Intelligence and the Scientific Revolution
×
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