Monday, May 12, 2008
"Hence the simple assertion that Hegel denies the principle of non contradiction gives a quite inaccurate view of the situation. What Hegel does is give a dynamic interpretation of the principle in place of the static interpretation which is characteristic of the level of understanding.. This principle operates in dialectical thinking but it operates as a principle of movement." A History of Philosophy, Vol. 7 Frederick Copleston, S.J.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Yikes. Well, *that* lovely statement should give you a healthy fear of philosophizing Jesuits (a part of my thesis addressed this problem, and, provided I'm reading this quote correctly, I believe that I successfully argued for the simple assertion that he so lightly dismisses as irrelevant, as did Mr. Berquist in my many conversations with him). Swear off of them right now, Tasik - those Jesuits are trouble. ;)
You do realize, dear, that you are deprecating one of the most respected and commonly used histories of philosophy ever written. Rev. Copleston's history is regarded as renowned by such persons as the Nieto, if I remember correctly.
I don't think you can say that Hegel denies the principle of non-contradiction. What Copleston argues (and what has helped me make vast strides in understanding Hegel) is that Hegel has an understanding of "contradiction" more in line with "contrary" than with contradiction as we understand it. And I think he's right.
You do realize, dear, that you are deprecating one of the most respected and commonly used histories of philosophy ever written. Rev. Copleston's history is regarded as renowned by such persons as the Nieto, if I remember correctly.
I don't think you can say that Hegel denies the principle of non-contradiction. What Copleston argues (and what has helped me make vast strides in understanding Hegel) is that Hegel has an understanding of "contradiction" more in line with "contrary" than with contradiction as we understand it. And I think he's right.
Damn sticky key.
Well, thus the "provided that I'm reading this quote correctly" - - - I think I'd need more proof from the text/explanation/context to feel comfy with the assertion he's making. Now, even hubby's first reaction to this was "Modernism in a nutshell" and then reading where the quote came from lamented that such a well-reputed author should also be subject to these relativistic mistakes. So, perhaps, if there's more context behind this quote that would un-villify it, please let me know what it is.
Post a Comment