In defence of the applicability of the classical definition
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34767/HG.2018.08.13Keywords:
anti-essentialism, anti-definitionsism, certitude, classical definition, nominal definition, real definition, definitionism, doxa, episteme, essentialism, fallibilismAbstract
The following review article undertakes the defense of the meaning and position of the real definition, in particular the classical one, through a polemic with the thesis of Robert Kublikowski’s work Definicje i rozwój wiedzy. Od Arystotelesa do Putnama(Definitions and Development of Knowledge. From Aristotle to Putnam). The author of the above-mentioned work undertook an extremely important task of examining the status and role of the real, and in particular the classical, definition in scientific applications, polemicising with some theses of modern philosophers of science, such as: Karl Popper, Hilary Putnam, or the theoretician of communication Edward Schiapp.Although the work of R. Kublikowski presents and refers to many thinkers of modernity and antiquity, including the concepts of Aristotle himself,the author essentially builds his arguments in relation to Popper’s position of fallibilism, antiessentialism and anti definitionalism. It seems, however, that the author only partially defended the position of certitude and definitionism, which he tried to prove. The author of the discussed monograph referred only to natural and genre concepts, but the work would gain value if he extended his considerations onto the area of general theory of being, which Stagirite considered the highest and certain kind of theoretical knowledge, called episteme by him.
References
Bayer G., Classification and Explanation in Aristotle’s Theory of Definition, „Journal of the History of Philosophy”, Volume 36, Number 4, October 1998, s. 487–505.
Graeser A., On Language, Thought and Reality in Ancient Greek Philosophy, „Dialectica” 31, 1977, s. 359–388.
Kamiński S., Gergonne’a teoria definicji, Wyd. Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL, Lublin 1958. 4. Kamiński S., Hobbesa teoria definicji, „Studia Logica” 7 (1), 1958, s. 43–69.
Kublikowski R., Antyesencjalizm jako założenie antydedukcjonizmu Karla R. Poppera,„Roczniki Filozoficzne”, Vol. 52, No. 2, 2004, s. 267–274.
Kublikowski R., Definicje i rozwój wiedzy. Od Arystotelesa do Putnama, Wyd. TowarzystwoNaukowe KUL, Lublin 2013.
Szubka T., Odnowa filozofii według Hilarego Putnama, „Analiza i Egzystencja” 15, 2011, s. 45–58.
Bednarz I., Polscy filozofowie wobec Poppera, „Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria”, Nr 4 (92), R. 23, 2014, s. 11–43.
Smolak M., Arystotelesa charakterystyka zniszczalnych substancji, „Analiza i Egzystencja”,13, 2011, s. 28–51.
Woleński J., Arystoteles i Tarski, „Peitho. Examina Anitiqua” 1 (8), 2017, s. 261–269.
