Review of S. Centrone, Studien zu Bolzano

Kód výsledku v IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F67985955%3A_____%2F23%3A00563980" target="_blank" >RIV/67985955:_____/23:00563980 - isvavai.cz</a>

Výsledek na webu

<a href="https://doi.org/10.4324/b23065-18" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.4324/b23065-18</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

—

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

Review of S. Centrone, Studien zu Bolzano

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

Stefania Centrone’s book Studien zu Bolzano, published in 2015, is a collection of six German written articles dealing mostly with Bolzano’s logic. Bolzano’s Contributions are discussed in the first essay right from the beginning. For Bolzano, the proper method of mathematics is the method of proper scientific treatment of all objective regions. However, there are ambivalences, weaker points. Centrone points out that Bolzano’s logic is not able to satisfy the principles according to which consequences should be founded in their grounds. Bolzano states the principles mentioned earlier only after he attempts to prove that there are first grounding propositions which necessarily have simple concepts as subjects and predicates. Centrone points out that Bolzano considers “clearness” as an internal property of the ideas, while for Leibniz, it consists of a relation between an idea and its object. However, I argue that when Centrone proceeds to discuss the difference between Bolzano’s and Husserl’s concept of clearness with respect to evidence of axioms, she misidentifies the proper counterparts to Bolzano’s view of axiomatic knowledge in Husserl’s work.

Název v anglickém jazyce

Review of S. Centrone, Studien zu Bolzano

Popis výsledku anglicky

Stefania Centrone’s book Studien zu Bolzano, published in 2015, is a collection of six German written articles dealing mostly with Bolzano’s logic. Bolzano’s Contributions are discussed in the first essay right from the beginning. For Bolzano, the proper method of mathematics is the method of proper scientific treatment of all objective regions. However, there are ambivalences, weaker points. Centrone points out that Bolzano’s logic is not able to satisfy the principles according to which consequences should be founded in their grounds. Bolzano states the principles mentioned earlier only after he attempts to prove that there are first grounding propositions which necessarily have simple concepts as subjects and predicates. Centrone points out that Bolzano considers “clearness” as an internal property of the ideas, while for Leibniz, it consists of a relation between an idea and its object. However, I argue that when Centrone proceeds to discuss the difference between Bolzano’s and Husserl’s concept of clearness with respect to evidence of axioms, she misidentifies the proper counterparts to Bolzano’s view of axiomatic knowledge in Husserl’s work.

Druh

O - Ostatní výsledky

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

60301 - Philosophy, History and Philosophy of science and technology

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2023

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů