Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

ANALİTİK FELSEFE DİYE BİR FELSEFE OKULU VAR MIDIR?

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 72, 290 - 309, 15.12.2020

Öz

Analitik gelenek kendisini diğer felsefi okullardan berraklık, kesinlik, mantıksal titizlik ve daraltılmış odaklı olmak gibi özelliklerle ayırt etmeye çalışmıştır. Buna rağmen analitik felsefe büyük kümesinin içerisinde bazı okullar normalde kendisinin karşıtı olarak nitelenen Kıta felsefesi geleneği ile bazı çarpıcı ortaklıklar barındırmaktadır. Ben bu çalışmamda analitik felsefenin doğumundan itibaren içerisinde barındırdığı farklılıkların sıklıkla zıtlık seviyesine ulaştığını ve ayrıca kendisinin şiddetle reddettiği birçok özelliği ya zaten kendisinde bulundurduğunu veya zamanla o özellikleri kazandığını göstermeye çalışacağım. Bunun sonucunda analitik felsefe etiketini kullanmamızı haklı ve yararlı çıkarabilecek bir şeyin kalmadığı sonucuna varıyorum. Ulaştığım bir yan sonuç ise son yarım asrın analitik felsefesinin, analitik felsefenin tarihsel başlangıcından itibaren karşı çıktığı ve yıkmaya çalıştığı felsefeyi yeniden canlandırdığıdır: ampirik bilimlerin asla ulaşamayacağı türden bilgileri bulup formüle etme çabası, yani metafiziğin asli işlevi.

Teşekkür

Bu problemle ilgili senelerdir uzun tartışmalar yaptığımız arkadaşım Araş. Gör. Tolgahan Toy'a çok teşekkür etmek isterim.

Kaynakça

  • Aaron Preston, Analitik Felsefe. Bir Yanılsamanın Tarihi, çev. Meriç Mete (İdea Yayınevi, 2017)
  • ———, “Analytic Philosophy”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Ali Bilge Öztürk, “Karl Popper’ın Gözünden Analitik Felsefenin Dilbilimsel Dönemi”, Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 6 (2016), 249–60 <https://doi.org/10.13114/MJH.2016119302>
  • Bernard Linsky ve Edward N. Zalta, “Naturalized Platonism versus platonized naturalism”, Journal of Philosophy, 92 (1995), 525–55
  • Bertrand Russell, “Vagueness”, Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 1 (1923), 84–92 <https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048402308540623>
  • Burton Dreben ve Juliet Floyd, “Frege-Wittgenstein Correspondence”, içinde Interactive Wittgenstein. Essays in Memory of Georg Henrik von Wright, ed. Enzo De Pellegrin, çev. Burton Dreben ve Juliet Floyd (Springer, 2011), 349, 15–73
  • Charles Sanders Peirce, “How to Our Make Ideas Clear”, Popular Science Monthly 12, 1878, 286–302
  • Çağlar Koç, “Psikolojizm ve Karşıtları”, Kutadgubilig, 32 (2016), 377–92
  • David Spurrett, “Why I am not an analytic philosopher”, South African Journal of Philosophy, 27 (2008), 153–63 <https://doi.org/10.4314/sajpem.v27i2.31509>
  • Egemen Seyfettin Kuşçu, “Analitik Felsefe: Dile Dönüşten Ontolojiye Dönüşe”, Kutadgubilig, 31 (2016), 117–40
  • Erdinç Sayan, “Hocam Teo Grünberg”, içinde Tutarsızlığın İz Sürücüsü: Dilde/Düşüncede. Teo Grünberg’e Armağan, ed. Zekiye Kutlusoy (Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, 2013), ss. 93–96
  • ———, “Kıta Felsefesi — Bilim ve Akla Muhalefet Çabasındaki Bir Felsefe Geleneğinin Eleştirisi”
  • Gary Kemp, “Quine’s Relationship with Analytic Philosophy”, içinde The Blackwell Companion to Quine, ed. E. Lepore ve G. Harman (Blackwell Publishing, 2013)
  • George Edward Moore, “A Defense of Commonsense”, içinde Philosophical Papers (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1959), ss. 32–45
  • Gottlob Frege, “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry”, Mind, 65 (1956), 289–311
  • H. S. Thayer, “Charles Sanders Pierce. Giriş”, içinde Felsefi Metinler: Pragmatizm, ed. İsmail Doğu, çev. Alparslan Doğan, Bilal Genç, ve Celal Türer (İstanbul: Üniversite Kitabevi Yayınları, 2004), ss. 45–49
  • Hans-Johann Glock, “Was Wittgenstein an Analytic Philosopher?”, Metaphilosophy, 35 (2004), 419–44 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2004.00329.x>
  • ———, What is Analytic Philosophy? (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2008)
  • Hans Reichenbach, “Felsefe ve Tabiat Bilimleri”, içinde Bilime Yeni Pozitivist Bakış. İstanbul Konferansları, ed. Remzi Demir ve İnan Kalaycıoğulları, çev. Nusret Hızır ve İnan Kalaycıoğulları (Ankara: Epos Yayınları, 2013), ss. 13–21
  • Jean-Gérard Rossi, Analitik Felsefe, çev. Atakan Altınörs, Gözden geç (İstanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2013)
  • John R. Searle, “Contemporary Philosophy in the United States”, içinde The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, ed. Nicholas Bunnin ve E. P. Tsui-James, 2. baskı (Blackwell Publishing, 2003), ss. 1–22
  • John R. Shook, “Neuropragmatism, knowledge, and pragmatic naturalism”, Human Affairs, 23 (2013), 576–93 <https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-013-0150-4>
  • Kenneth R. Westphal, “Conventionalism and the Impoverishment of the Space of Reasons: Carnap, Quine and Sellars”, Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, 3 (2015), 1–66 <https://doi.org/10.15173/jhap.v3i8.42>
  • Luciano Floridi, “A Plea for Non-naturalism as Constructionism”, Minds and Machines, 27 (2017), 269–85 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9422-9>
  • ———, “What is A Philosophical Question?”, Metaphilosophy, 44 (2013), 195–221 <https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12035> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, çev. Oruç Aruoba, 7. baskı (İstanbul: Metis, 2013)
  • Mario de Caro ve David Macarthur, “Introduction: Science, Naturalism, and the Problem of Normativity”, içinde Naturalism and Normativity, ed. Mario DeCaro ve David Macarthur (New York, N.Y: Columbia University Press, 2010), ss. 1–19
  • Martin Kusch, Psychologism: A Case Study in the Sociology of Philosophical Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1995)
  • Michael Beaney, “What is Analytic Philosophy?”, içinde The Oxford Handbook of The History of Analytic Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2013) <https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238842.013.0039>
  • Michael Dummett, Origins of Analytical Philosophy (London: Duckworth, 1993)
  • Özgüç Güven, “Analitik Felsefenin Tanımlayıcı Özellikleri Üstüne”, Kutadgubilig, 28 (2015), 11–24
  • Philip Kitcher, “The Naturalists Return”, Philosophical Review, 101 (1992), 53–114 <https://doi.org/10.2307/2185044>
  • Richard G Heck ve Robert May, “Frege’s Contribution to Philosophy of Language”, içinde The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2006), ss. 3–39
  • Rudolf Carnap, “Dilin Mantıksal Analiziyle Metafiziği Eleme”, çev. Ercan Salgar, Dört Öğe, 2014, 165–81
  • ———, “The Elimination of Metaphysics through Logical Analysis of Language”, içinde Logical Positivism, ed. A. J. Ayer, çev. Arthur Pap (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1959), ss. 60–81
  • Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, ve Hans Hahn, “The Scientific World Conception: The Vienna Circle” (Vienna: Artur Wolf, 1929) <http://evidencebasedcryonics.org/pdfs/viennacircle.pdf> [erişim 1 Ocak 2018]
  • Sally Parker-Ryan, “Ordinary Language Philosophy”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Sander Verhaegh, Working from Within: The Nature and Development of Quine’s Naturalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018)
  • Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2. baskı (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1970)
  • Thomas Uebel, “Vienna Circle”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stanford University, 2016)
  • Willard Van Orman Quine, “Epistemology Naturalized”, içinde Quintessence: basic readings from the philosophy of W. V. Quine, ed. Roger F Gibson (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. A Bradford Book, 2004), ss. 259–74
  • ———, “Grades of Theoreticity”, içinde Experience & Theory, ed. Lawrence Foster ve J W Swanson (Baltimore, MD: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1970), ss. 1–17
  • ———, “Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Philosophical Review, 60 (1951), 20–43
  • ———, “On What There Is”, The Review of Metaphysics, 2 (1948), 21–38
  • ———, “Ontological Relativity”, Journal of Philosophy, 65 (1968), 185–212
  • ———, “Structure and Nature”, Journal of Philosophy, 60 (1992), 5–9

IS THERE A PHILOSOPHICAL SCHOOL SUCH AS ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY?

Yıl 2020, Sayı: 72, 290 - 309, 15.12.2020

Öz

Analytic tradition tries to discern itself from other schools of thought through clarity, precision, rigor, and narrow focus. Despite this, some schools, within a vast analytic philosophy cluster, usually bear some remarkable resemblances with its antagonist—Continental Philosophy. In this study, I try to show how, since its inception, analytic philosophy has frequently become conflictual; the properties that it has thoroughly rejected are also included therein or have been acquired over time. As a result, I conclude that it is neither justified nor useful to utilize the label analytic philosophy. Another corollary I have derived is that analytic philosophy has revived the very philosophical tradition that it has previously denied during the past half a century. It is the finding and formulation of such knowledge that could not be attained by empirical sciences.

Kaynakça

  • Aaron Preston, Analitik Felsefe. Bir Yanılsamanın Tarihi, çev. Meriç Mete (İdea Yayınevi, 2017)
  • ———, “Analytic Philosophy”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Ali Bilge Öztürk, “Karl Popper’ın Gözünden Analitik Felsefenin Dilbilimsel Dönemi”, Mediterranean Journal of Humanities, 6 (2016), 249–60 <https://doi.org/10.13114/MJH.2016119302>
  • Bernard Linsky ve Edward N. Zalta, “Naturalized Platonism versus platonized naturalism”, Journal of Philosophy, 92 (1995), 525–55
  • Bertrand Russell, “Vagueness”, Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosophy, 1 (1923), 84–92 <https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00048402308540623>
  • Burton Dreben ve Juliet Floyd, “Frege-Wittgenstein Correspondence”, içinde Interactive Wittgenstein. Essays in Memory of Georg Henrik von Wright, ed. Enzo De Pellegrin, çev. Burton Dreben ve Juliet Floyd (Springer, 2011), 349, 15–73
  • Charles Sanders Peirce, “How to Our Make Ideas Clear”, Popular Science Monthly 12, 1878, 286–302
  • Çağlar Koç, “Psikolojizm ve Karşıtları”, Kutadgubilig, 32 (2016), 377–92
  • David Spurrett, “Why I am not an analytic philosopher”, South African Journal of Philosophy, 27 (2008), 153–63 <https://doi.org/10.4314/sajpem.v27i2.31509>
  • Egemen Seyfettin Kuşçu, “Analitik Felsefe: Dile Dönüşten Ontolojiye Dönüşe”, Kutadgubilig, 31 (2016), 117–40
  • Erdinç Sayan, “Hocam Teo Grünberg”, içinde Tutarsızlığın İz Sürücüsü: Dilde/Düşüncede. Teo Grünberg’e Armağan, ed. Zekiye Kutlusoy (Ankara: İmge Kitabevi Yayınları, 2013), ss. 93–96
  • ———, “Kıta Felsefesi — Bilim ve Akla Muhalefet Çabasındaki Bir Felsefe Geleneğinin Eleştirisi”
  • Gary Kemp, “Quine’s Relationship with Analytic Philosophy”, içinde The Blackwell Companion to Quine, ed. E. Lepore ve G. Harman (Blackwell Publishing, 2013)
  • George Edward Moore, “A Defense of Commonsense”, içinde Philosophical Papers (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1959), ss. 32–45
  • Gottlob Frege, “The Thought: A Logical Inquiry”, Mind, 65 (1956), 289–311
  • H. S. Thayer, “Charles Sanders Pierce. Giriş”, içinde Felsefi Metinler: Pragmatizm, ed. İsmail Doğu, çev. Alparslan Doğan, Bilal Genç, ve Celal Türer (İstanbul: Üniversite Kitabevi Yayınları, 2004), ss. 45–49
  • Hans-Johann Glock, “Was Wittgenstein an Analytic Philosopher?”, Metaphilosophy, 35 (2004), 419–44 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2004.00329.x>
  • ———, What is Analytic Philosophy? (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2008)
  • Hans Reichenbach, “Felsefe ve Tabiat Bilimleri”, içinde Bilime Yeni Pozitivist Bakış. İstanbul Konferansları, ed. Remzi Demir ve İnan Kalaycıoğulları, çev. Nusret Hızır ve İnan Kalaycıoğulları (Ankara: Epos Yayınları, 2013), ss. 13–21
  • Jean-Gérard Rossi, Analitik Felsefe, çev. Atakan Altınörs, Gözden geç (İstanbul: Bilge Kültür Sanat, 2013)
  • John R. Searle, “Contemporary Philosophy in the United States”, içinde The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, ed. Nicholas Bunnin ve E. P. Tsui-James, 2. baskı (Blackwell Publishing, 2003), ss. 1–22
  • John R. Shook, “Neuropragmatism, knowledge, and pragmatic naturalism”, Human Affairs, 23 (2013), 576–93 <https://doi.org/10.2478/s13374-013-0150-4>
  • Kenneth R. Westphal, “Conventionalism and the Impoverishment of the Space of Reasons: Carnap, Quine and Sellars”, Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy, 3 (2015), 1–66 <https://doi.org/10.15173/jhap.v3i8.42>
  • Luciano Floridi, “A Plea for Non-naturalism as Constructionism”, Minds and Machines, 27 (2017), 269–85 <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-017-9422-9>
  • ———, “What is A Philosophical Question?”, Metaphilosophy, 44 (2013), 195–221 <https://doi.org/10.1111/meta.12035> Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico Philosophicus, çev. Oruç Aruoba, 7. baskı (İstanbul: Metis, 2013)
  • Mario de Caro ve David Macarthur, “Introduction: Science, Naturalism, and the Problem of Normativity”, içinde Naturalism and Normativity, ed. Mario DeCaro ve David Macarthur (New York, N.Y: Columbia University Press, 2010), ss. 1–19
  • Martin Kusch, Psychologism: A Case Study in the Sociology of Philosophical Knowledge (London: Routledge, 1995)
  • Michael Beaney, “What is Analytic Philosophy?”, içinde The Oxford Handbook of The History of Analytic Philosophy (Oxford University Press, 2013) <https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199238842.013.0039>
  • Michael Dummett, Origins of Analytical Philosophy (London: Duckworth, 1993)
  • Özgüç Güven, “Analitik Felsefenin Tanımlayıcı Özellikleri Üstüne”, Kutadgubilig, 28 (2015), 11–24
  • Philip Kitcher, “The Naturalists Return”, Philosophical Review, 101 (1992), 53–114 <https://doi.org/10.2307/2185044>
  • Richard G Heck ve Robert May, “Frege’s Contribution to Philosophy of Language”, içinde The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2006), ss. 3–39
  • Rudolf Carnap, “Dilin Mantıksal Analiziyle Metafiziği Eleme”, çev. Ercan Salgar, Dört Öğe, 2014, 165–81
  • ———, “The Elimination of Metaphysics through Logical Analysis of Language”, içinde Logical Positivism, ed. A. J. Ayer, çev. Arthur Pap (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1959), ss. 60–81
  • Rudolf Carnap, Otto Neurath, ve Hans Hahn, “The Scientific World Conception: The Vienna Circle” (Vienna: Artur Wolf, 1929) <http://evidencebasedcryonics.org/pdfs/viennacircle.pdf> [erişim 1 Ocak 2018]
  • Sally Parker-Ryan, “Ordinary Language Philosophy”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  • Sander Verhaegh, Working from Within: The Nature and Development of Quine’s Naturalism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2018)
  • Thomas Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2. baskı (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 1970)
  • Thomas Uebel, “Vienna Circle”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Stanford University, 2016)
  • Willard Van Orman Quine, “Epistemology Naturalized”, içinde Quintessence: basic readings from the philosophy of W. V. Quine, ed. Roger F Gibson (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. A Bradford Book, 2004), ss. 259–74
  • ———, “Grades of Theoreticity”, içinde Experience & Theory, ed. Lawrence Foster ve J W Swanson (Baltimore, MD: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1970), ss. 1–17
  • ———, “Main Trends in Recent Philosophy: Two Dogmas of Empiricism”, Philosophical Review, 60 (1951), 20–43
  • ———, “On What There Is”, The Review of Metaphysics, 2 (1948), 21–38
  • ———, “Ontological Relativity”, Journal of Philosophy, 65 (1968), 185–212
  • ———, “Structure and Nature”, Journal of Philosophy, 60 (1992), 5–9
Toplam 45 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil Türkçe
Konular Felsefe
Bölüm Araştırma Makaleleri
Yazarlar

Serdal Tümkaya 0000-0002-2453-4184

Yayımlanma Tarihi 15 Aralık 2020
Gönderilme Tarihi 20 Ekim 2020
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2020 Sayı: 72

Kaynak Göster

APA Tümkaya, S. (2020). ANALİTİK FELSEFE DİYE BİR FELSEFE OKULU VAR MIDIR?. Felsefe Dünyası(72), 290-309.

Felsefe Dünyası Creative Commons Atıf-GayriTicari 4.0 Uluslararası Lisansı ile lisanslanmıştır.