Abstract
AbstractIn this paper I argue that Carnap in the Aufbau and in his later writings consistently conceives the humanities and the social sciences as domains of knowledge that are epistemically equal to the natural sciences. I show that Carnap was skeptical about the philosophical theories of Dilthey, Rickert and Windelband which aimed to distinguish the natural sciences from the humanities through a logical criterion. Although Carnap in the Aufbau integrated some terminology from Dilthey, Windelband and Rickert, he never accepted their philosophical questions about the humanities as legitimate. In his later writings, following Otto Neurath, he openly distanced himself from terminology that could be associated with such questions, and he never again spoke in a programmatic fashion about cultural concepts, like he had done in the Aufbau.
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Reference37 articles.
1. Beiser, F.C. 2012. The German historicist tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Birkeland, A., and H. Nilsen. 2002. Thinking in forms: Ernst Cassirer and his critique of the idiographic–nomothetic distinction. In Forms of knowledge and sensibility: Ernst Cassirer and the human sciences, ed. G. Foss and E. Kasa, 98–118. Kristiansand: Norwegian Academic Press.
3. Carnap, R. 1929. Abriß der Logistik. Vienna: Springer.
4. ———. 1930. Die alte und die neue Logik. Erkenntnis 1:12–26.
5. ———. 1931. Die physikalische Sprache als Universalsprache der Wissenschaft. Erkenntnis 2: 432–465.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献