维特根斯坦的哲学学徒/译。来自英格兰。V. V. Tselishchev

V. V. Tselishchev
{"title":"维特根斯坦的哲学学徒/译。来自英格兰。V. V. Tselishchev","authors":"V. V. Tselishchev","doi":"10.25206/2542-0488-2022-7-4-115-129","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The years since the publication of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus have produced a good many interpretations of its central tenets. Time has produced something of a consensus concerning the nature of the Tractarian criticisms of Russell’s philosophy. Recent work on Russell’s philosophy of logic reveals, however, that the agreed account of Tractarian criticisms relies upon characterizing Russell with positions he did not hold.","PeriodicalId":34375,"journal":{"name":"Omskii nauchnyi vestnik Seriia Obshchestvo Istoriia Sovremennost''","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wittgenstein’s Tractarian Apprenticeship / trans. from Engl. V. V. Tselishchev\",\"authors\":\"V. V. Tselishchev\",\"doi\":\"10.25206/2542-0488-2022-7-4-115-129\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The years since the publication of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus have produced a good many interpretations of its central tenets. Time has produced something of a consensus concerning the nature of the Tractarian criticisms of Russell’s philosophy. Recent work on Russell’s philosophy of logic reveals, however, that the agreed account of Tractarian criticisms relies upon characterizing Russell with positions he did not hold.\",\"PeriodicalId\":34375,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Omskii nauchnyi vestnik Seriia Obshchestvo Istoriia Sovremennost''\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Omskii nauchnyi vestnik Seriia Obshchestvo Istoriia Sovremennost''\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2022-7-4-115-129\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Omskii nauchnyi vestnik Seriia Obshchestvo Istoriia Sovremennost''","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2022-7-4-115-129","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自维特根斯坦的《论》出版以来,人们对其核心原则产生了许多解释。时间已经产生了某种共识,关于特拉克特派批评罗素哲学的性质。然而,最近对罗素逻辑哲学的研究表明,对特拉克主义批评的一致描述依赖于用罗素不持有的立场来描述罗素。
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
Wittgenstein’s Tractarian Apprenticeship / trans. from Engl. V. V. Tselishchev
The years since the publication of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus have produced a good many interpretations of its central tenets. Time has produced something of a consensus concerning the nature of the Tractarian criticisms of Russell’s philosophy. Recent work on Russell’s philosophy of logic reveals, however, that the agreed account of Tractarian criticisms relies upon characterizing Russell with positions he did not hold.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
59
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Selfish Genes and Moral Parasites / trans. from Engl. A. V. Nekhaev Knowledge-that, Knowledge-how, consciousness and artificial intelligence «Where once the Russian flag is raised, there it should not go down» Genealogy of the Omsk Batyushkins family in first half of the 19th century according to church records Factors of activity of the troops of NKVD of the USSR during the East Prussian strategic offensive operation
×
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