形而上学、科学和文学

IF 0.2 4区 社会学 0 HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY ANGELAKI-JOURNAL OF THE THEORETICAL HUMANITIES Pub Date : 2022-09-03 DOI:10.1080/0969725X.2022.2110397
A. Cimino
{"title":"形而上学、科学和文学","authors":"A. Cimino","doi":"10.1080/0969725X.2022.2110397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract If we examine the discussion between Carnap and Heidegger about metaphysics, we can easily see that epistemological, logical, and ontological issues were at the forefront of that debate, whereas at first glance the nature of philosophical writing seems to be of very little importance. This article intends to demonstrate that this impression is not accurate. When Carnap and Heidegger voiced their theses on metaphysics, they also put forth intriguing ideas about the relationship between metaphysics, science, and literature. Those ideas deserve much attention because they can help us better understand why they maintained their respective conceptions of metaphysics, philosophy, and science. More importantly, this article argues that an analysis of their ideas about philosophical writing enables us to discover unsuspected similarities between Carnap and Heidegger.","PeriodicalId":45929,"journal":{"name":"ANGELAKI-JOURNAL OF THE THEORETICAL HUMANITIES","volume":"27 1","pages":"79 - 96"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metaphysics, Science, and Literature\",\"authors\":\"A. Cimino\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0969725X.2022.2110397\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract If we examine the discussion between Carnap and Heidegger about metaphysics, we can easily see that epistemological, logical, and ontological issues were at the forefront of that debate, whereas at first glance the nature of philosophical writing seems to be of very little importance. This article intends to demonstrate that this impression is not accurate. When Carnap and Heidegger voiced their theses on metaphysics, they also put forth intriguing ideas about the relationship between metaphysics, science, and literature. Those ideas deserve much attention because they can help us better understand why they maintained their respective conceptions of metaphysics, philosophy, and science. More importantly, this article argues that an analysis of their ideas about philosophical writing enables us to discover unsuspected similarities between Carnap and Heidegger.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45929,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ANGELAKI-JOURNAL OF THE THEORETICAL HUMANITIES\",\"volume\":\"27 1\",\"pages\":\"79 - 96\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ANGELAKI-JOURNAL OF THE THEORETICAL HUMANITIES\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2022.2110397\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ANGELAKI-JOURNAL OF THE THEORETICAL HUMANITIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2022.2110397","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

如果我们考察卡尔纳普和海德格尔关于形而上学的讨论,我们可以很容易地看到,认识论、逻辑和本体论问题是这场辩论的前沿,而哲学写作的本质乍一看似乎并不重要。本文旨在证明这种印象是不准确的。卡尔纳普和海德格尔在阐述他们关于形而上学的论点时,也提出了关于形而上学、科学和文学之间关系的有趣观点。这些观点值得我们关注,因为它们可以帮助我们更好地理解为什么他们保持了各自的形而上学、哲学和科学概念。更重要的是,本文认为,分析他们关于哲学写作的观点使我们能够发现卡尔纳普和海德格尔之间意想不到的相似之处。
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
Metaphysics, Science, and Literature
Abstract If we examine the discussion between Carnap and Heidegger about metaphysics, we can easily see that epistemological, logical, and ontological issues were at the forefront of that debate, whereas at first glance the nature of philosophical writing seems to be of very little importance. This article intends to demonstrate that this impression is not accurate. When Carnap and Heidegger voiced their theses on metaphysics, they also put forth intriguing ideas about the relationship between metaphysics, science, and literature. Those ideas deserve much attention because they can help us better understand why they maintained their respective conceptions of metaphysics, philosophy, and science. More importantly, this article argues that an analysis of their ideas about philosophical writing enables us to discover unsuspected similarities between Carnap and Heidegger.
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
ANGELAKI-JOURNAL OF THE THEORETICAL HUMANITIES
ANGELAKI-JOURNAL OF THE THEORETICAL HUMANITIES HUMANITIES, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
33.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: Angelaki: journal of the theoretical humanities was established in September 1993 to provide an international forum for vanguard work in the theoretical humanities. In itself a contentious category, "theoretical humanities" represents the productive nexus of work in the disciplinary fields of literary criticism and theory, philosophy, and cultural studies. The journal is dedicated to the refreshing of intellectual coordinates, and to the challenging and vivifying process of re-thinking. Angelaki: journal of the theoretical humanities encourages a critical engagement with theory in terms of disciplinary development and intellectual and political usefulness, the inquiry into and articulation of culture.
期刊最新文献
General Issue I 2023 “I Just Care so Much About the Koalas” Notes on the contributors Enjoyment With(Out) Exception Resisting Academic Neoliberalism
×
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