首页> 外文期刊>History and Philosophy of Logic >Justification of Induction: Russell and Jin Yuelin. A Comparative Study
【24h】

Justification of Induction: Russell and Jin Yuelin. A Comparative Study

机译:归纳论证:罗素和金岳霖。比较研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Jin Yuelin (1895-1984), a Chinese logician and philosopher, is greatly influenced by Hume's and Russell's philosophies. How should we respond to Hume's problem of induction? This is an important clue to understand Jin's whole philosophical career. The first section of this paper gives a brief historical review of Russell and Jin. The second section outlines Hume's skeptical arguments against causality and induction. The third section expounds Russell's justification of induction by discussing his views on Hume's skepticism, causality, principle of induction, and empirical postulates. The fourth section clarifies Jin's justification of induction by discussing his critique of Hume's epistemology and his arguments for the reliability of causality and the eternal truth and apriority of the principle of induction. The final section compares Jin's justification of induction with Russell's and concludes that there are similarities and differences between their projects and that both their attempts fail. This paper takes the similar responses to the problem of induction by Jin and Russell to demonstrate the communication that there has been between Chinese philosophers and the Western ones.View full textDownload full textRelated var addthis_config = { ui_cobrand: "Taylor & Francis Online", services_compact: "citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,delicious,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,more", pubid: "ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b" }; Add to shortlist Link Permalink http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2012.680703
机译:中国逻辑学家和哲学家金岳霖(1895-1984)受休H(Hume)和罗素(Russell)的哲学影响很大。我们应该如何应对休ume的归纳问题?这是理解金的整个哲学生涯的重要线索。本文的第一部分简要概述了罗素和金。第二部分概述了休ume对因果关系和归纳法的怀疑论点。第三部分通过讨论他对休ume的怀疑主义,因果关系,归纳原理和经验假设的观点,阐述了罗素的归纳论证。第四部分通过讨论金正日对休ume认识论的批判以及对因果关系的可靠性以及归纳原理的永恒真理和优先性的论证,阐明了金正日的辩护理由。最后一部分将Jin的入职理由与Russell的入职理由进行了比较,并得出结论,他们的项目之间存在异同,并且两者的尝试均失败。本文对金和罗素的归纳问题进行了类似的回应,以证明中国哲学家与西方哲学家之间已经有了交流。查看全文下载全文相关的var addthis_config = {ui_cobrand:“泰勒和弗朗西斯在线”,services_compact ::“ citeulike,netvibes,twitter,technorati,美味,linkedin,facebook,stumbleupon,digg,google,更多”,pubid:“ ra-4dff56cd6bb1830b”};添加到候选列表链接永久链接http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01445340.2012.680703

著录项

  • 来源
    《History and Philosophy of Logic》 |2012年第4期|p.353-378|共26页
  • 作者

    Chen Boa*;

  • 作者单位
  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-18 00:52:19

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号