Combining Philosophers

All the ideas for Alistair Mitchell, Wilhelm Dilthey and Anon (Titus)

unexpand these ideas     |    start again     |     specify just one area for these philosophers


4 ideas

1. Philosophy / H. Continental Philosophy / 3. Hermeneutics
The claim of hermeneutics to give knowledge through understanding is challenged by positivism [Mautner on Dilthey]
     Full Idea: The claim of hermeneutics to give understanding instead of explanation can be seen as part of the theory of knowledge, but it seems to be incompatible with the most accepted aspects of positivism.
     From: comment on Wilhelm Dilthey (works [1883]) by Thomas Mautner - Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy p.248
     A reaction: So much the worse for positivism. The same conflict occurs in modern philosophy of mind. God can be a positivist if he likes, but we must settle for hermeneutics for a lot of our knowledge. We are discussing method, not ontology.
5. Theory of Logic / L. Paradox / 6. Paradoxes in Language / a. The Liar paradox
One of their own prophets said that Cretans are always liars [Anon (Titus)]
     Full Idea: One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, the Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true.
     From: Anon (Titus) (17: Epistle to Titus [c.115], I.12)
     A reaction: The classic statement of the paradox, the word 'always' being the source of the problem.
14. Science / C. Induction / 3. Limits of Induction
Maybe induction is only reliable IF reality is stable [Mitchell,A]
     Full Idea: Maybe we should say that IF regularities are stable, only then is induction a reliable procedure.
     From: Alistair Mitchell (talk [2006]), quoted by PG - Db (ideas)
     A reaction: This seems to me a very good proposal. In a wildly unpredictable reality, it is hard to see how anyone could learn from experience, or do any reasoning about the future. Natural stability is the axiom on which induction is built.
14. Science / D. Explanation / 1. Explanation / d. Explaining people
Natural science seeks explanation; human sciences seek understanding [Dilthey, by Mautner]
     Full Idea: In the natural sciences we seek for causes and ask for explanation (erklären), but in the human or cultural sciences we seek understanding (verstehen) by means of interpretation.
     From: report of Wilhelm Dilthey (works [1883]) by Thomas Mautner - Penguin Dictionary of Philosophy p.144
     A reaction: This seems a nice distinction. The prospects of finding the causes or explanations of Shakespeare's plays don't look good, and when you have explained the causes of a chemical reaction you probably have all you need.