Hur den moderna vetenskapen löste försokratikernas problem. En kritisk granskning av ett ledmotiv i Erik Stenius bok Tankens gryning
| LEADER | caa a22 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 378942948 | ||
| 003 | CHVBK | ||
| 005 | 20180305123657.0 | ||
| 007 | cr unu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 161128e200411 xx s 000 0 mul | ||
| 024 | 7 | 0 | |a 10.1515/SATS.2004.119 |2 doi |
| 035 | |a (NATIONALLICENCE)gruyter-10.1515/SATS.2004.119 | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Österman |D Bernt |u Department of Philosophy, University of Helsinki. bernt.osterman@helsinki.fi | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Hur den moderna vetenskapen löste försokratikernas problem. En kritisk granskning av ett ledmotiv i Erik Stenius bok Tankens gryning |h [Elektronische Daten] |c [Bernt Österman] |
| 520 | 3 | |a In the article, a main theme of the Finnish philosopher Erik Stenius' book on the Presocratic philosophy, Tankens gryning (The Dawn of Thought) is examined. Stenius' book may be read as an attempt to show how modern science managed to solve the problem of the intelligibility of change inherent in early Western thinking. In doing so, he makes use of the conception of the strive for knowledge as a search for invariances proposed by another Finnish philosopher, Eino Kaila. Stenius argues that the problems of understanding change followed from the static nature of the substantial invariances of the Presocratic systems of thought, and only could be solved by the invention of dynamic invariances by modern science. However, in the article it is shown that there is an important difference between Stenius' and Kaila's notions of invariance. Whereas Stenius thinks about invariances as unchangeable laws, Kaila sees them as unifying patterns, which brings him close to the unificationist view of scientific explanation which later has been defended by Philip Kitcher. However, the generality of Kaila's approach suggests that what he really is discussing is the human strive for understanding. It is argued that Kaila's notion of an invariance is more useful than Stenius's for the purpose of comparing Presocratic philosophy and modern science. In consequence, the story of the evolution of Western thought told by Stenius also has to be revised. | |
| 540 | |a © Philosophia Press 2004 | ||
| 773 | 0 | |t SATS |d Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG |g 5/2(2004-11), 119-140 |x 1600-1974 |q 5:2<119 |1 2004 |2 5 |o SATS | |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1515/SATS.2004.119 |q text/html |z Onlinezugriff via DOI |
| 908 | |D 1 |a research article |2 jats | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 856 |E 40 |u https://doi.org/10.1515/SATS.2004.119 |q text/html |z Onlinezugriff via DOI | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 100 |E 1- |a Österman |D Bernt |u Department of Philosophy, University of Helsinki. bernt.osterman@helsinki.fi | ||
| 950 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |P 773 |E 0- |t SATS |d Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG |g 5/2(2004-11), 119-140 |x 1600-1974 |q 5:2<119 |1 2004 |2 5 |o SATS | ||
| 900 | 7 | |b CC0 |u http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0 |2 nationallicence | |
| 898 | |a BK010053 |b XK010053 |c XK010000 | ||
| 949 | |B NATIONALLICENCE |F NATIONALLICENCE |b NL-gruyter | ||