Campos controversiales y progreso en filosofía

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Nudler, Oscar
Data de Publicação: 2016
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: por
Título da fonte: Manuscrito (Online)
Texto Completo: https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644554
Resumo: Is there progress in philosophy? This question is addressed along the three sections of this article. In the introductory section a comparison with similar questions which may be posed in connection to the arts and the sciences is made. A preliminar result of such comparison is that the same as in science the notion of progress in philosophy should be understood in an epistemic sense. However, if a notion of epistemic progress useful in the case of science is applied, a negative conclusion concerning the existence of such progress in philosophy may be easily reached.. In fact, a usual way of arguing for such negative conclusion is to recall the lack of consensus around any proposed solution of main philosophical problems and, hence, the existence of seemingly endless controversies around them. But against such conclusion I argue that a particular notion of progress – involving conceptual or intellectual enlargement and articulation is more appropriate to the nature of philosophy. Once such notion is adopted, consensus ceases to be a necessary condition for progress. In the second section, after defining the notion of controversial field as a set of interrelated controversies, a classification of main positions vis-a-vis philosophical controversial fields is proposed. The main distinction is between the mainstream view according to which lack of consensus and endless controversies are, to use Kant ́s words, the “scandal of philosophy” and an alternative view, advocated by Russell and Rescher, who praise the controversial status of philosophy as a way of preserving the plurality of our basic value commitments. Though recognizing the merits of those views, a serious flaw affecting all of them is pointed out, namely, their lack of attention to the actual development of controversial fields. After introducing such historical focus, the differences between different types of controversial fields are described. In particular, the difference between progressive and regressive types. Moreover, the differences between different stages in the development of controversial fields such as refocusing and substitution are also described. In the last section the preceding conceptual scheme is illustrated by sketching the development of twenty century philosophy of science through its main stages and controversial fields. Finally, na answer to the question posed at the beginning is provided: it is possible to assert the existence of progress in philosophy, in the sense introduced above, but only within the limits of controversial fields. If there is also progress between controversial fields is a question that may be doubted. It is not, in any case, dealt with in this article.
id UNICAMP-17_5388d6837bfad5490b233f5e7683783b
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8644554
network_acronym_str UNICAMP-17
network_name_str Manuscrito (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Campos controversiales y progreso en filosofíaEpistemic progresscontroversial fieldrefocusingIs there progress in philosophy? This question is addressed along the three sections of this article. In the introductory section a comparison with similar questions which may be posed in connection to the arts and the sciences is made. A preliminar result of such comparison is that the same as in science the notion of progress in philosophy should be understood in an epistemic sense. However, if a notion of epistemic progress useful in the case of science is applied, a negative conclusion concerning the existence of such progress in philosophy may be easily reached.. In fact, a usual way of arguing for such negative conclusion is to recall the lack of consensus around any proposed solution of main philosophical problems and, hence, the existence of seemingly endless controversies around them. But against such conclusion I argue that a particular notion of progress – involving conceptual or intellectual enlargement and articulation is more appropriate to the nature of philosophy. Once such notion is adopted, consensus ceases to be a necessary condition for progress. In the second section, after defining the notion of controversial field as a set of interrelated controversies, a classification of main positions vis-a-vis philosophical controversial fields is proposed. The main distinction is between the mainstream view according to which lack of consensus and endless controversies are, to use Kant ́s words, the “scandal of philosophy” and an alternative view, advocated by Russell and Rescher, who praise the controversial status of philosophy as a way of preserving the plurality of our basic value commitments. Though recognizing the merits of those views, a serious flaw affecting all of them is pointed out, namely, their lack of attention to the actual development of controversial fields. After introducing such historical focus, the differences between different types of controversial fields are described. In particular, the difference between progressive and regressive types. Moreover, the differences between different stages in the development of controversial fields such as refocusing and substitution are also described. In the last section the preceding conceptual scheme is illustrated by sketching the development of twenty century philosophy of science through its main stages and controversial fields. Finally, na answer to the question posed at the beginning is provided: it is possible to assert the existence of progress in philosophy, in the sense introduced above, but only within the limits of controversial fields. If there is also progress between controversial fields is a question that may be doubted. It is not, in any case, dealt with in this article.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2016-03-29info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644554Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 25 n. 2 (2002): Jul./Dez.; 337-352Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 25 No. 2 (2002): Jul./Dez.; 337-352Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 25 Núm. 2 (2002): Jul./Dez.; 337-3522317-630Xreponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPporhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644554/11943Copyright (c) 2002 Manuscritoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessNudler, Oscar2016-03-29T16:22:51Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8644554Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscritoPUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/oaimwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2016-03-29T16:22:51Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Campos controversiales y progreso en filosofía
title Campos controversiales y progreso en filosofía
spellingShingle Campos controversiales y progreso en filosofía
Nudler, Oscar
Epistemic progress
controversial field
refocusing
title_short Campos controversiales y progreso en filosofía
title_full Campos controversiales y progreso en filosofía
title_fullStr Campos controversiales y progreso en filosofía
title_full_unstemmed Campos controversiales y progreso en filosofía
title_sort Campos controversiales y progreso en filosofía
author Nudler, Oscar
author_facet Nudler, Oscar
author_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Nudler, Oscar
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Epistemic progress
controversial field
refocusing
topic Epistemic progress
controversial field
refocusing
description Is there progress in philosophy? This question is addressed along the three sections of this article. In the introductory section a comparison with similar questions which may be posed in connection to the arts and the sciences is made. A preliminar result of such comparison is that the same as in science the notion of progress in philosophy should be understood in an epistemic sense. However, if a notion of epistemic progress useful in the case of science is applied, a negative conclusion concerning the existence of such progress in philosophy may be easily reached.. In fact, a usual way of arguing for such negative conclusion is to recall the lack of consensus around any proposed solution of main philosophical problems and, hence, the existence of seemingly endless controversies around them. But against such conclusion I argue that a particular notion of progress – involving conceptual or intellectual enlargement and articulation is more appropriate to the nature of philosophy. Once such notion is adopted, consensus ceases to be a necessary condition for progress. In the second section, after defining the notion of controversial field as a set of interrelated controversies, a classification of main positions vis-a-vis philosophical controversial fields is proposed. The main distinction is between the mainstream view according to which lack of consensus and endless controversies are, to use Kant ́s words, the “scandal of philosophy” and an alternative view, advocated by Russell and Rescher, who praise the controversial status of philosophy as a way of preserving the plurality of our basic value commitments. Though recognizing the merits of those views, a serious flaw affecting all of them is pointed out, namely, their lack of attention to the actual development of controversial fields. After introducing such historical focus, the differences between different types of controversial fields are described. In particular, the difference between progressive and regressive types. Moreover, the differences between different stages in the development of controversial fields such as refocusing and substitution are also described. In the last section the preceding conceptual scheme is illustrated by sketching the development of twenty century philosophy of science through its main stages and controversial fields. Finally, na answer to the question posed at the beginning is provided: it is possible to assert the existence of progress in philosophy, in the sense introduced above, but only within the limits of controversial fields. If there is also progress between controversial fields is a question that may be doubted. It is not, in any case, dealt with in this article.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-03-29
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644554
url https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644554
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv por
language por
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8644554/11943
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2002 Manuscrito
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2002 Manuscrito
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade Estadual de Campinas
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 25 n. 2 (2002): Jul./Dez.; 337-352
Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 25 No. 2 (2002): Jul./Dez.; 337-352
Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 25 Núm. 2 (2002): Jul./Dez.; 337-352
2317-630X
reponame:Manuscrito (Online)
instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron:UNICAMP
instname_str Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
instacron_str UNICAMP
institution UNICAMP
reponame_str Manuscrito (Online)
collection Manuscrito (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br
_version_ 1800216566218883072