분석의 역설과 역설회피의 전략
The Paradox of Analysis and Some Resolutions
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
분석의 역설을 처음으로 명확하게 자각하고, 이를 회피할 방안을 제시한 사람은 무어(G. E. Moore)이다. 여기서는 이 역설의 해결책을 무어식의 반-언어적 노선과 이에서 벗어나 있는 노선으로 나누어 제시한다. 후자에는 개념의 특징 및 종류, 명제의 구조, 비동등성 관계에 주목해서 역설을 회피하려는 전략이 있다. 본 논문의 일차적인 목적은 주요 역설해결책을 기술하고 그 분류를 제시하는 것이지만, 이와 더불어 또한 각 해결 전략의 한계를 논하도록 하겠다. 그런데 이런 논의를 효율적으로 전개하려면, 먼저 무어의 분석이론을 재구성하는 일이 필요하다. 무어의 분석이론은, 단지 역사적인 중요성뿐 아니라, 고전적 분석의 전형을 이룬다는 점에서도 관심의 대상이 되기에 충분하다. 또한 분석의 역설이 고전적 분석과 같이 특정 유형의 분석에만 해당한다는 주장에 반대하여 넓은 범위의 분석에서 발생한다고 주장하겠다. 그러나 더불어 이런 상황이 분석의 무용성을 보여주는 것은 아니라고 주장하겠다.
Abstract
We put forward a scheme of the theory of analysis, and G. E. Moore's theory of analysis is reconstructed. As C. H. Langford pointed out, Moore’s theory commits to the paradox of analysis which says that if a analysis is correct then it is not informative, and if it is informative it is not correct. For, according to his theory, analysing statement is necessarily true identity statement and have some information. Moorean responses which is given by Max Black, Raymond Bradley and Norman Swartz, and Wilfrid Sellars rely on the distinction between the information about concepts and linguistic entity. These approaches are deficient in dealing properly with the difference in concepts as analysandum and analysans. Also, non-Moorean resolutions asserted by Myers, King, Black, and Earl are examined.
참고문헌 (50)
- 박준호, "규정주의 정의이론", 철학연구, 108, pp.91~114 (2008), 대한철학회
- Ackerman, D. Felicia, "Midwest Studies in Philosophy 6", pp.313~320 (1981), University of Minnesota Press
- Ackerman, D. Felicia, "Midwest Studies in Philosophy 11", pp.304~313 (1986), University of Minnesota Press
- Ackerman, D. Felicia, "Philosophical Perspectives 4", pp.535~543 (1990), Ridgeview Publishing
- Baldwin, Tome, "G. E. Moore: The Arguments of Philosophers" (1992), Routledge
- "George Edward Moore" (2004)[URL]
- Bealer, G., "Remarks on Classical Analysis", Journal of Philosophy, 80(11), pp.711~712 (1983)
- Beaney, Michael, "Conceptions of Analysis in Early Analytic Philosophy", Acta Analytica, 15(25), pp.97~115 (2000)
- Beaney, Michael, "The Analytic Turn in Early Twentiethcentury Philosophy", pp.1~30 (2007)
- "Analysis" (2009)[URL]
- "Supplement to Analysis: Conceptions of Analysis in Analytic Philosophy" (2009)[URL]
- Beaney, Michael, "The Analytic Turn: Analysis in Early Analytic Philosophy and Phenomenology" (2007), Routledge
- Black, Max, "The Paradox of Analysis", Mind, 53, pp.263~267 (1944)
- Bradley, Raymond, "Possible Worlds: An Introduction to Logic and Its Philosophy" (1979), Basil Blackwell
- Carnap, Rudolf, "Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic" (1960), The University of Chicago Press
- Chisholm, Roderick, "The Problem of Empiricism", Journal of Philosophy, 45, pp.412~417 (1948)
- Chisholm, Roderick, "Identity Criteria for Properties", The Harvard Review of Philosophy, 2, pp.14~16 (1992)
- Chisholm, R., "The Paradox of Analysis : A Solution", Metaphilosophy, 12(1), pp.1~6 (1981)
- Church, Alonzo, "Review of Four Articles on the Paradox of Analysis", Journal of Symbolic Logic, 11, pp.132~133 (1946)
- Cobb, Jeffrey, "Problems for Linguistic Solutions to the Paradox of Analysis", Metaphilosoophy, 32(4), pp.419~426 (2001)
- Daly, Chris, "An Introduction to Philosophical Methods" (2010), Broadview Press
- Earl, Dennis, "A Semantic Resolution of the Paradox of Analysis", Acta Analytica, 22(3), pp.189~205 (2007)
- "Concepts" (2007)[URL]
- Frege, Gottlob, "Compound Thoughts", Mind, 72, pp.1~17 (1963)
- Hanna, Robert, "Kant, Wittgenstein and The Fate of Analysis", pp.142~163 (2007)
- "Contemporary Metaphilosophy"[URL]
- King, J., "What is a Philosophical Analysis?", Philosophical Studies, 90, pp.155~179 (1998)
- King, J., "The Nature and Structure of Content" (2007), Oxford University Press
- Kim, Jeagwon, "심리철학" (1996), 철학과현실사
- Lazerowitz, Morris, "Studies in Metaphilosophy" (1964), Routledge & Kegan Paul
- Langford, C. H., "The Notion of Analysis in Moore's philosophy", pp.321~342 (1942)
- Mills, Eugene, "Are Analytic Philosophers Shallow and Stupid?", Journal of Philosophy, 105(6), pp.301~319 (2008)
- Moore, George Edward, "Reply to My Critics: Analysis", pp.533~667 (1942)
- Moore, George Edward, "Lectures on Philosophy" (1966), Humanities Press
- Myers, C. Mason, "Moore’s Paradox of Analysis", Metaphilosophy, 2(4), pp.295~308 (1971)
- O'Connor, David, "Moore and the Paradox of Analysis", Philosophy, 57, pp.211~221 (1982)
- Parsons, Terence D., "Frege's Hierarchies of Indirect Senses and the Paradox of Analysis", Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 6(1), pp.37~58 (1981)
- "The Analytic/Synthetic Distinction" (2013)[URL]
- Rieber, S. D., "The Paradoxes of Analysis and Synonymy", Erkenntnis, 41, pp.103~116 (1994)
- Salmon, Nathan U., "Frege's Puzzle" (1986), The MIT Press
- Sellars, Wilfrid, "The Identity of Linguistic Expressions and the Paradox of Analysis", Philosophical Studies, 1(2), pp.24~31 (1950)
- Schlipp, Paul A., "The Philosophy of G. E. Moore" (1942), Open Court
- Soames, Scott, "Beyond Rigidity, New" (2002), Oxford University
- Sosa, E., "Classical Analysis", Journal of Philosophy, 80(11), pp.695~710 (1983)
- Steup, Matthias, "현대 인식론 입문" (2008), 서광사
- Strawson, P. F., "Analysis and Metaphysics: An Introduction to Philosophy" (1992), Oxford University Press
- White, Morton G., "A Note on the ‘Paradox of Analysis", Mind, 54(213), pp.71~72 (1945)
- Wisdom, John, "Is Analysis a Useful Method in Philosophy?", Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Sup, 13, pp.65~89 (1934)
- Wittgenstein, Ludwig, "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" (1922), Routledge
- Wittgenstein, Ludwig, "Philosophical Investigations" (1953), MacMillan