CAJ | 학술논문

加里·古廷对于分析哲学和欧陆哲学的差异提出了一种新观点,即这种差异在于对作为评价标准的＂经验＂概念和＂理性＂概念的不同理解,它们的差异不仅仅是风格上的,而且是本质上的。他站在分析哲学的立场上认为,两方面不可能在相互批评中通过相互应对而获益,因此是难以沟通的。与其相反,蔡斯和雷诺兹并不这样认为,他们关注于两种传统中不同的方法论规范,承认沟通的可能性,并将这种可能性归于形式化。通过对＂分析＂方法的历史性反思,他们认为自韦达开始,＂分析＂方法成为形式化的必要条件,而形式化构成了现代数学和现代符号逻辑的基础。但是,形式化并未消除鸿沟,现代数学、自然科学和符号逻辑的形式化所特有的＂分析性＂哲学预设背后,数的模糊性呈现出来的问题在分析哲学和欧陆哲学中并未被解决,从＂形式化＂的哲学问题中引出的现代性困境将继续不为人知。
가리·고정대우분석철학화구륙철학적차이제출료일충신관점,즉저충차이재우대작위평개표준적＂경험＂개념화＂이성＂개념적불동리해,타문적차이불부부시풍격상적,이차시본질상적。타참재분석철학적립장상인위,량방면불가능재상호비평중통과상호응대이획익,인차시난이구통적。여기상반,채사화뢰낙자병불저양인위,타문관주우량충전통중불동적방법론규범,승인구통적가능성,병장저충가능성귀우형식화。통과대＂분석＂방법적역사성반사,타문인위자위체개시,＂분석＂방법성위형식화적필요조건,이형식화구성료현대수학화현대부호라집적기출。단시,형식화병미소제홍구,현대수학、자연과학화부호라집적형식화소특유적＂분석성＂철학예설배후,수적모호성정현출래적문제재분석철학화구륙철학중병미피해결,종＂형식화＂적철학문제중인출적현대성곤경장계속불위인지。
Gary Gutting puts forward a new idea on the differences between analytic and continental philosophy, namely, these differences concern their conceptions of ＂experience＂ and of ＂reason＂ as standards of evaluation and they are not only stylistic but substantially philosophical. He thinks in the position of analytic philosophy that, it is impossible for two sides to profit from the mutual criticism by dealing with each other , therefore, it is difficult for them to communicate. In contrast, Chase and Reynolds focus on the different methodological norms of each side, and admit the possibility of communication, which is attributed to formalization. Through the historical reflection of ＂analytic＂ art, they think that this ＂art＂ has functioned as the sine qua non for the formalization that composes the foundation of modem mathematics and modern symbolic logic since Vieta. However, formalization does not eliminate the divide the problems that are presented by the equivocity of number are not solved in analytic and continental philosophy behind the philosophical presuppositions of the ＂analyticity＂ of special formalization of modem mathematics, natural science, and symbolic logic, and the dilemma of modernity derived from the＂ formalization＂ of the philosophical problem will remain unknown.