According to the Oxford English Dictonary George Berkeley introduced the term a priori into English. His inspiration for this was, it seems, to be found partly in the writings of his immediate predecessors, particularly Pierre Bayle, and partly in his pedagogical work where he adjudicated disputations between his pupils. Some of his arguments against the existence of matter Berkeley tells us are a priori, others a posteriori. Even the a priori arguments are underpinned by prior semantic principles of an anti-abstractionist character, which are shown to be important particularly in the immaterialist philosophy of mathematics. Berkeley's courageously unorthodox, and generally unpublished, thoughts about mathematics thus grow from the same soil as his celebrated denial of matter., Marek Tomeček., and Obsahuje poznámky a bibliografii
Cílem Rortyho článku „Analytická a konverzační filosofie“ je nahrazení distinkce mezi analytickou a kontinentální filosofií rozlišením mezi filosofií analytickou a filosofií konverzační. Tím dojde při nahlížení rozdílu mezi oběma typy filosofie k odstranění geografického hlediska, které, ač samo o sobě poskytuje určitou možnost rozlišit jednotlivé typy filosofů, není dle Rortyho ve skutečnosti určující. Tento rozdíl spočívá především v odlišném náhledu filosofie na sebe samotnou, na smysl a cíle své práce. Spočívá v odpovědi na otázku, zda filosofie může něco poznávat takové, jaké to doopravdy je, či nikoli a zda se může vydat po cestě vědy, či by měla naopak vnímat sebe sama spíše jako konverzaci a rozvíjení kulturního uvažování., The aim of Rorty’s article Analytic and conversational philosophy is to replace the distinction between analytic and continental philosophy with a distinction between analytic and conversational philosophy. This is achieved through a perception of the difference between the two types of philosophy that rejects the geographical viewpoint which, though it may provide a certain possibility of distinguishing the specific types of philosophy, is not in Rorty’s view really decisive. The difference consists above all in the distinctive view of philosophy of itself, and of the sense and aim of its endeavour. It consists in the response to the question of whether philosophy can or cannot know something as it really is; whether it can follow the path of science; or whether it should rather perceive itself as a conversation and an opening up of cultural reflection., and Richard Rorty.