Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T04:40:53.682Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Schlick on the Source of the ‘Great Errors in Philosophy’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 September 2018

MARK TEXTOR Open the ORCID record for MARK TEXTOR [Opens in a new window]
MARK TEXTOR*
Affiliation:
KING'S COLLEGE LONDONmark.textor@kcl.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Moritz Schlick's work shaped logical empiricism and thereby an important part of philosophy in the first half of the twentieth century. A continuous thread that runs through his work is a philosophical diagnosis of the ‘great errors in philosophy’: philosophers assume that there is intuitive knowledge or knowledge by acquaintance. Yet, acquaintance is not knowledge, but an evaluative attitude. In this paper I will reconstruct Schlick's arguments for this conclusion in the light of his early practical philosophy and his reading of Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Idea. Having the historical roots of Schlick's dichotomy between acquaintance (intuition) and knowledge in view will put us in a position to explore and question its presuppositions.

Keywords

acquaintanceintuitive knowledgeRussellSchlickSchopenhauer
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , Spring 2018 , pp. 105 - 125
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I presented forerunners of this paper at talks in King's College London in 2016 and the University of Göttingen in 2017. I am grateful to the audiences for discussion. Special thanks go to Bill Brewer and Jørgen Dyrstad for extensive written comments and discussion. I am grateful to two anonymous referees whose comments helped me to improve the paper.

References

Avenarius, R. (1876) Philosophy als Denken der Welt gemäss des kleinsten Kraftmasses: Prolegomena zu einer Kritik der reinen Erfahrung. Leipzig: Fues Verlag.Google Scholar
Bergson, F. (1912) An Introduction to Metaphysics. Translated by Hulme, T. E.. New York: Putnam's.Google Scholar
Blumenberg, A. E., and Feigl, H.. (1931) ‘Logical Positivism’. The Journal of Philosophy, 11, 281–96.Google Scholar
Brentano, F. (1924) Psychology from an Empirical Standpoint. Translated by Rancurello, A. C., Terrell, D. B., and McAlister, L.. 2d ed. London: Taylor & Francis e-Library 2009. Page references in brackets to Psychologie vom Empirischen Standpunkt. 2d ed. (1924) in two volumes. Edited by Kraus, O., repr. Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 1971.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. (2011) ‘Consciousness and Reference’. In Beckermann, A., McLaughlin, B., and Walter, S. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 648–63.Google Scholar
Craig, E. (1990) Knowledge and the State of Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crane, T. (2012). ‘Tye on Acquaintance and the Problems of Consciousness’. Philosophy and Phenomenal Research, 84, 190–98.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1983) ‘Critical Notice M. Schlick Collected Papers‘. Philosophy of Science, 50, 498–513.Google Scholar
Husserl, E. (1913) ‘Ideen zur einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie’. Jahrbuch für Philosophie und Phänomenologische Forschung 1, 1–323. Translated 1933 by Gibson, Boyce as Ideas: General Introduction to Phenomenology. Repr. London: Routledge, 2012.Google Scholar
Jacoby, G. (1912) ‘Henri Bergson, Pragmatism and Schopenhauer’. The Monist, 22, 593–611.Google Scholar
Janaway, C. (1989) Self and World in Schopenhauer's Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1882) ‘Die ökonomische Natur der physikalischen Forschung’. In Populär-wissenschaftliche Vorlesungen (Leipzig: Ambrosius Barth, 1903), 215–43. Translated as ‘The Economical Nature of Physical Inquiry’. In Popular Scientific Lectures (Chicago: Open Court, 1895), 186–214.Google Scholar
Mach, E. (1894) ‘Über das Prinzip der Vergleichung in der Physik’. In Populär-Wissenschaftliche Vorlesungen, 263–87. Translated as ‘On the Principle of Comparison in Physics’. In Popular Scientific Lectures, 236–59.Google Scholar
Montague, M. (2007) ‘Against Propositionalism’. Noûs, 41, 503–18.Google Scholar
Proops, I. (2014) ‘Russellian Acquaintance Revisited’. The Journal of the History of Philosophy, 52, 779–811.Google Scholar
Prosser, S. (2011) ‘Affordances and Phenomenal Character in Spatial Perception’. The Philosophical Review, 120, 475–513.Google Scholar
Reginster, B. (2008) ‘Knowledge and Selflessness: Schopenhauer and the Paradox of Reflection’. European Journal of Philosophy, 16, 251–71.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1911–12) ‘Knowledge by Acquaintance and Knowledge by Description’. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 11, 108–28.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1912) The Problems of Philosophy. Repr. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Russell, B. (1913) ‘The Nature of Sense-Data: A Reply to Dr. Dawes Hicks’. Mind, 22, 76–81.Google Scholar
Shelton, J. (1989) ‘Schlick's Theory of Knowledge’. Synthese, 79, 305–17.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1908) Lebensweisheit: Versuch einer Glückseligkeitslehre. München: Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Repr. Moritz Schlick Gesamtausgabe I 3, edited by M. Iven. Wien/New York: Springer, 43–335.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1913) ‘Gibt es intuitive Erkenntnis?’. Vierteljahresschrift für wissenschaftliche Philosophie und Soziologie, 37, 472–88, translated as: ‘Is There Intuitive Knowledge?’ In Schlick 1979, 141–53.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1918) ‘Erscheinung und Wesen’. Kant-Studien 23, 188–208. Translated as: ‘Appearance and Essence’, in Schlick 1979, 270–88.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1925) Allgemeine Erkenntnislehre. 2d ed. Berlin: Springer. Translated as General Theory of Knowledge, Berlin/New York Springer, 1974.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1932) ‘Form and Content’. In Friedl, J. and Rutte, H. (eds.), Moritz Schlick: Erkenntnistheorische Schriften, 1926–1936. Moritz Schlick Gesamtausgabe II/1.2. (Wien/New York: Springer), 177–361.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1933–34) Die Probleme der Philosophie in Ihrem Zusammenhang: Vorlesungen aus dem Wintersemester, 1933–34. Edited by Mulder, H., Kox, A. J., and Hegselmann, R.. Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp, 1986. Translated as The Problems of Philosophy in their Interconnection: Wintersemester Lecture, 1933–34. Edited by Mulder, H., Kox, A. J., and Hegselmann, R., translated by Heath, P.. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1979) Philosophical Papers I (1909–22). Edited by Mulder, H. and Van der Velde-Schlick, B.. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (2013) Nietzsche und Schopenhauer (Vorlesungen), Schlick Gesamtausgabe II 5.1. Edited by Iven, M.. Vienna/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, A. (2010) The World as Will and Idea I. Translated and edited by Norman, J., Welchman, A., and Janaway, C.. The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Schopenhauer, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1956) Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Repr. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.Google Scholar
Stadler, J. (2001) The Vienna Circle: Studies in the Origins, Development, and Influence of Logical Empiricism. Vienna/New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Unger, P. (1975) Ignorance: The Case for Scepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, T. (2000) Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Young, J. (2005) Schopenhauer. London: Routledge.Google Scholar