Department of Classics and Philosophy, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2024 Aug 1;46(3):27. doi: 10.1007/s40656-024-00622-w.
Comparative to the commonplace focus onto developments in mathematics and physics, the life sciences appear to have received relatively sparse attention within the early history of analytic philosophy. This paper addresses two related aspects of this phenomenon. On the one hand, it asks: to the extent that the significance of the life sciences was indeed downplayed by early analytic philosophers, why was this the case? An answer to this question may be found in Bertrand Russell's 1914 discussions of the relation between biology and philosophy. Contrary to received views of the history of analytic philosophy, Russell presented his own 'logical atomism' in opposition not only to British Idealism, but also to 'evolutionism'. On the other hand, I will question whether this purported neglect of the life sciences does indeed accurately characterise the history of analytic philosophy. In answering this, I turn first to Susan Stebbing's criticisms of Russell's overlooking of biology, her influence on J.H. Woodger, and her critical discussion of T.H. Huxley's and C.H. Waddington's application of evolutionary views to philosophical questions. I then discuss the case of Moritz Schlick, whose evolutionist philosophy has been overlooked within recent debates concerning Logical Empiricism's relation to the philosophy of biology.
与对数学和物理学发展的普遍关注相比，生命科学在分析哲学的早期历史中似乎受到的关注相对较少。本文探讨了这一现象的两个相关方面。一方面，它提出了这样一个问题：在早期分析哲学家确实低估了生命科学的重要性的情况下，为什么会出现这种情况？这个问题的答案可以在伯特兰·罗素 1914 年对生物学和哲学之间关系的讨论中找到。与分析哲学历史的传统观点相反，罗素提出了自己的“逻辑原子论”，不仅反对英国唯心主义，也反对“进化论”。另一方面，我将质疑这种所谓对生命科学的忽视是否真的准确地描述了分析哲学的历史。在回答这个问题时，我首先讨论了苏珊·斯泰宾对罗素忽视生物学的批评，她对 J.H.伍德格的影响，以及她对 T.H.赫胥黎和 C.H.沃丁顿将进化论观点应用于哲学问题的批判性讨论。然后我讨论了莫里茨·石里克的案例，他的进化论哲学在最近关于逻辑实证主义与生物学哲学关系的辩论中被忽视了。
