In this article I argue how in the history of philosophy the meaning of the term“to be”was disputed over by two research programmes:the Platonic-Aristotelian one up to Heidegger and the Pythagorean-Parmenidean-Democ...In this article I argue how in the history of philosophy the meaning of the term“to be”was disputed over by two research programmes:the Platonic-Aristotelian one up to Heidegger and the Pythagorean-Parmenidean-Democritean one through Hobbes and Boole up to Peano.I call the first of“grammatical”type,the other of“linguistic algebraic”type.As in the grammatical classifications,in the former,formal or linguistic distinctions are mistaken for distinctions of logical type,or even of real or,as it is said,metaphysical type;hence its empty philosophical verbalism.In the latter,the term“to be”is taken in its merely linguistic meaning to build the science of reality,which should be known starting from rational principles,the“ideas”,as Democritus called them,through an adequate language.展开更多
文摘In this article I argue how in the history of philosophy the meaning of the term“to be”was disputed over by two research programmes:the Platonic-Aristotelian one up to Heidegger and the Pythagorean-Parmenidean-Democritean one through Hobbes and Boole up to Peano.I call the first of“grammatical”type,the other of“linguistic algebraic”type.As in the grammatical classifications,in the former,formal or linguistic distinctions are mistaken for distinctions of logical type,or even of real or,as it is said,metaphysical type;hence its empty philosophical verbalism.In the latter,the term“to be”is taken in its merely linguistic meaning to build the science of reality,which should be known starting from rational principles,the“ideas”,as Democritus called them,through an adequate language.
