SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kutadgubilig: Felsefe Bilim Araştırmaları / 2017 / Sayı: 34

NEO (NEW)-ARISTOTELIANISM IN ONTOLOGY OF CONTEMPORARY ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY: IS IT REALLY NEW?

GÜNCEL ANALİTİK FELSEFENİN ONTOLOJİSİNDE YENİ-ARİSTOTELESÇİLİK: GERÇEKTEN YENİ Mİ?

EGEMEN SEYFETTİN KUŞCU
Pages
631–657
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As a result it will be questioned whether that neo-Aristotelianism is a new way in philosophy or is it the old traditional way only in a new dress.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this paper the main purpose is to indicate a critical turn and a transformation of ideas in contemporary philosophy especially in analytic tradition.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Firstly this turn or transformation will be examined under three headlines ('The Metaphysical Approach', 'The Place of Commonsense', 'Things') and by the help of this examination, -it is hoped that- how the general point of view changed in metaphysics can be seen.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As a result it will be questioned whether that neo-Aristotelianism is a new way in philosophy or is it the old traditional way only in a new dress.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this paper the main purpose is to indicate a critical turn and a transformation of ideas in contemporary philosophy especially in analytic tradition. Firstly this turn or transformation will be examined under three headlines ('The Metaphysical Approach', 'The Place of Commonsense', 'Things') and by the help of this examination, -it is hoped that- how the general point of view changed in metaphysics can be seen. Secondly by pointing this turn we will examine some of the philosophers ontological views which can be named as Neo-Aristotelian solutions to the current philosophical problems. And this will be the problematic side in this paper. In that examination we tried to understand the main features of these new approaches in philosophy. As a result it will be questioned whether that neo-Aristotelianism is a new way in philosophy or is it the old traditional way only in a new dress.

Özet

Bu yazıdaki öncelikli kaygımız analitik felsefe içerisinde yaşanan bir dönüşe, bir dönüşüme işaret etmektir. Bu dönüş/dönüşüm öncelikle 'Metafizik Yaklaşım', 'Sağduyunun Yeri' ve 'Şeyler' şeklindeki üç başlık içerisinde incelenecektir ve bu başlıklar aslında ontolojide genel bakış açısının ne şekilde değiştiğini ortaya koyacaktır. Sonrasında ise daha belirgin problem alanları ele alınacaktır. Bu problem alanlarında özellikle bazı filozofların güncel sorunlara getirdikleri Aristotelesçi olarak adlandırılıp, sınıflanabilecek birer felsefi yaklaşım olan çözüm önerilerinden söz edilecek ve bu sayede "Yeni-Aristotelesçilik" de denen analitik felsefe içerisindeki dönüşümün temel özellikleri irdelenecek ve "Yeni" adlandırmasının yerinde bir adlandırma olup olmadığı sorgulanacaktır.

🔖

Cite This Article

KUŞCU, E. S. (2017). NEO (NEW)-ARISTOTELIANISM IN ONTOLOGY OF CONTEMPORARY ANALYTIC PHILOSOPHY: IS IT REALLY NEW?. Kutadgubilig: Felsefe Bilim Araştırmaları, Sayı: 34, 631–657. https://ajindex.com/articles/344629

References (12)

  1. Armstrong, D. M.; "Against 'Ostrich' Nominalism: A Reply to Michael Devitt", Properties, ed. Mellor&Oliver, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004, s. 101-112. ---; "Properties", Properties, ed. Mellor&Oliver, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004, s. 160-172. ---; "Towards a Theory of Properties. Work in Progress on the Problem of Universals", Philosophy, L, 192, 1975. ---; A World of State of Affairs, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. ---; Theory of Universals (Universals and Scientific Realism), vol. II, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1978. ---; Universals: an opinionated introduction, Westview Press, London, 1989.
  2. Baker, Lynne Rudder; A Metaphysics of Everyday Life, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2007.Beaney, Michael (ed); The Analytic Turn Analysis in Early Analytic Philosophy, Newyork&London, Routledge, 2007. ---; The Oxford Handbook of The History of Analytic Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.
  3. Berti, Enrico; "The Contemporary Relevance of Aristotle's Thought", Iris European Journal of Philosophy and Public Debate, III, Firenze University Press, 6 October 2011, pp. 23-35.
  4. Biletzki, Anat (ed.); The Story of Analytic Philosophy: Plot and Heroes, London, New York, Routledge, 2002.
  5. Campbell, Keith; Abstract Particulars, Oxford, Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1990.
  6. Corradini Antonella, Sergio Galvan and E. J. Lowe; "Introduction", Analytic Philosophy Without Naturalism, ed. Antonella Corradini, Sergio Galvan and E. J. Lowe, London&NewYork, Routledge, 2006, s. 1-13.
  7. Denkel, Arda; Nesne ve Doğası, İstanbul, Doruk Yayımcılık, 2003. ---; Yönletim: Dil Felsefesinde Bir Konu, İstanbul, Boğaziçi Üniversitesi Yayınları No. 281, 1981.
  8. Devitt, Michael; " 'Ostrich Nominalism' or 'Mirage Realism' ", Properties, ed. Mellor&Oliver, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004, s. 93-101.
  9. Feser, Edward (ed.); Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics, Hampshire, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. ---; "Introduction: An Aristotelian Revival", Aristotle on Method and Metaphysics, ed. Feser Edward, Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire, 2013, s. 1-5. Franklin James; "Aristotelianism in the Philosophy of Mathematics", Studia Neoaristotelica, 8 (2011) / 1, s. 3-15.
  10. Glock, Hans-Johann (ed.); The Rise of Analytic Philosophy, Oxford, Blackwell, 1997.
  11. Groff, Ruth & John Greco (ed.); Powers and Capacities in Philosophy: the new Aristotelianism, Routledge, London, 2012.
  12. Hacker, Peter M. S.; "Analytic Philosophy: Beyond the Linguistic Turn and Back Again", The Analytic Turn: Ana