[lit-ideas] palæo-Griceians
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 20:37:55 -0400 (EDT)
In "Re: Ariskant", D. McEvoy: "Popper is very much a Kantian and an
anti-Hegelian (indeed Popper's philosophy may be understood as an updated
Kantianism - one that takes into account Einstein, Darwin and Frege and the
implication that 'all knowledge is conjectural'; and many of Popper's key
philosophical arguments in the theory of knowledge are Kantian)."
D. McEvoy does not use "neo-Kantian". It may do, though, to revisit what
makes Kant a "palæo-Kantian" (or Kantian simpliciter) and Popper a
neo-Kantian (or an updated Kantian) or Grice a neo-Aristotelian, for that
matter. I
love those romantic labels.
But back to Grice's "Kantotle" (J. Bennett entitled his review of the Grice
festschrift, Philosophical Grounds of Rationality: Intentions, Categories,
Ends" PGRICE -- in the Times Literary Supplement: "In the tradition of
Kantotle") I think what unites Kantotle (or Kant with Aristotle, Ariskant) is
the idea of _category_ which is missing in Plato.
Yet, there are more similarities between Plato and Aristotle as Popper
thinks -- Alan Code has tried to formalise those divergences and similarities
in Griceian key -- R. B. Jones has been working on this).
As per the subject-line: a few authors call themselves neo-Griceians. By
sticking to the "palæo-" I think we are doing best.
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
- » [lit-ideas] palæo-Griceians - Jlsperanza
