The Beginnings of Metaphilosophy: Heinrich Struve vs. Morris Laserowitz
- Authors: Skripnik K.D.1
-
Affiliations:
- Southern Federal University
- Issue: Vol 28, No 3 (2024): POST-NEO-KANTIANISM
- Pages: 757-770
- Section: ONTOLOGY AND EPISTEMOLOGY
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2313-2302/article/view/325403
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2024-28-3-757-770
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/VWZJXA
- ID: 325403
Cite item
Abstract
The recognition of metaphilosophy as a separate independent philosophical discipline forces us to pay attention not only to the various variants of its understanding and its own status, but also to the history of its origin and development. It is believed that the beginning of metaphilosophy as a study of the nature of philosophy was laid by several articles by M. Lazerowitz, although some other philosophers are mentioned in passing. The study characterizes Lazerowitz’s desire to understand metaphilosophy as a view of philosophy “from the outside” and demonstrates the failure of this attempt: in fact, his metaphilosophy represents a position “inside” philosophy itself. The author of the research argues that the beginning of philosophy of philosophy should be associated with the works of the Russian and Polish philosopher Heinrich Struve and suggests a broader reconstruction of his approach. A comparison of the works of these philosophers makes it possible to identify their common starting point, which is the statement of the presence of many disagreements in philosophy, that is, what Kant called a “scandal” in philosophy. The differences between the two approaches are also revealed, in particular, Struve’s philosophy of philosophy is a precursor to any philosophy in general, aimed, while maintaining the different points of view of individual philosophers, at developing a “common worldview”. As the subject of his philosophy of philosophy, Struve calls a historical and critical analysis of the current state of philosophy, an explanation of the subject, tasks, goals, aspirations and method of philosophy; among the “principles” of philosophy is the study of the relationship of philosophy to other “phenomena of mental life.” In addition to Lazerowitz and Struve, the author points to other philosophers (for example, J. Maritain, V. Ern, E. Kalinowsky, T. Oizerman), whose interests include metaphilosophical problems, and a detailed study of their works can help to see a certain historical tradition of metaphilosophy.
About the authors
Konstantin D. Skripnik
Southern Federal University
Author for correspondence.
Email: kdskripnik@sfedu.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2150-1571
SPIN-code: 3272-4907
DSc in Philosophy, Professor, Professor, Department of the History of Foreign and Domestic Philosophy
105/42 B. Sadovaya St., Rostov-on-Don, 344006, Russian FederationReferences
- Williamson T. The Philosophy of Philosophy. Malden: Blackwell; 2007.
- Daly C. Introduction and Historical Overview. In: Daly C, editor. The Palgrave Handbook of Philosophical Methods. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. P. 1-32.
- D’Oro G, Overgaard S, editors. The Cambridge Companion to Philosophical Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2017.
- Cappelen H, Gender TS, Hawthone J, editors. The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Methodology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2016.
- Ducasse CJ. Philosophy as a Science: Its Matter and Its Method. New York: Oskar Piest; 1941.
- Hempel CG. Philosophy as a Science: Its Matter and Its Method. By C.J. Ducasse. The Journal of Symbolic Logic. 1941;6(4):159-160.
- Laserowitz M. Philosophy as a Science: Its Matter and Its Method. By C.J. Ducasse. Mind. 1942;53(203):284-287.
- Laserowitz M. A Note on ‘Metaphilosophy’. Metaphilosophy. 1970;1(1):91.
- Laserowitz M. Metaphilosophy. In: The Language of Philosophy: Freud and Wittgenstein. Dordrecht: D.Reidel; 1971/1977. P. 1-17.
- Laserowitz M. Studies in Metaphilosophy. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1964.
- Woźniczka M. Metafilozofia a dydaktyka filozofii. Analiza koncepcji filozofii jako zaplecze teoretyczne dla konwencji kształcenia filozoficznego. In: Woźniczka M., editor. Metafilozofia - nieporozumienie czy szansa filozofii? Kraków: Wydawnictwo “scriptum”; 2011. S. 253-293.
- Maritain J. Naturalne doświadczenie mistyczne i próżnia, tłum. J. Fenrychowa. In: Pisma filozoficzne. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Znak; 1988. S. 99-131.
- Kalinowski J. Ku prόbie konstrukcji metafilozofii. In: Stępień AB, Szubka T, editors. Studia metafilozoficzne. Vol. 1. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe; 1953/1993. S. 327-331.
- Oizerman TI. On the sense of the question “What is Philosophy?”. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. 2019;56(2):181-202. (In Russian).
- Struve GE. The distinctive features of philosophy and their significance in comparison with other sciences. Warsaw; 1872. (In Russian).
- Struve GE. Introduction in Philosophy. Warsaw: Kovalevski publ.; 1890. (In Russian).
- Moore G. Principia Ethica. Moscow: Progress publ.; 1984. (In Russian).
- Ern VF. The Struggle for Logos. In: Ern VF. Selected Works. Moscow: Pravda publ.; 1991. (In Russian).
- Carnap R. Intellectual Autobiography. In: Schilpp PA, editor. The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. La Salle: Open Court; 1963. P. 3-86.
Supplementary files
