The Сoncept of Sachverhalt: The State of Affairs in the Austrian Philosophy of the 19th Century
https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-1-106-120
Abstract
This article considers the concept of Sachverhalt in the Austrian philosophical tradition of the 19th century. In particular, we examine the works of Bernard Bolzano, Rudolf Lotze, Julius Bergmann, Franz Brentano, Karl Stumpf, Anton Marty and Alexius Meinong. The emergence of the concept of Sachverhalt, or the state of things, in extensive philosophical discussions is connected with the works of L. Wittgenstein and phenomenologist Adolf Reinach. Reinach criticized previous theories of judgment. He wrote that they were built on the evaluation, affirmation or negation of a particular object. And that is a mistake. Only introduction of the concept of Sachverhalt allows us to solve a number of logical contradictions that faces the theory of judgment. We find this term in the works of Lotze and Stumpf, but what is its position in their theories? Does it solve the problems that mentions Reinach? Therefore, in this study, we answer the question of how fair is Reinach’s criticism. Also we analyze the various theories of judgment in Austrian philosophy to determine whether it is possible to speak of Sachverhalt as a single entity connecting the concepts of all authors in the Austrian tradition.
Keywords
Lotze,
Reinach,
Bolzano,
Brentano,
Meinong,
Stumpf,
Marty,
theory of judgement,
state of affairs,
Austrian philosophy
Supporting agencies: The article is based on the results of the research (no. 17-01-0016) within the framework of the Program “Scientific Foundation of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE)” in 2016–2017 and is funded through the allocated by HSE subsidy for state support of the leading universities of the Russian Federation in order to increase their competitiveness among the world’s leading research and educational centers.
About the Author
V. V. Seliverstov
National Research University Higher School of Economics
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vladimir Seliverstov – Ph.D. in Philosophy, Lecturer at the School of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
Moscow.
References
1. Bolzano B. (1837) Theory of Science (Russian translation: Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 2003).
2. Brentano F. (1874) Psychology from Empirical Standpoint (Russian translation in: Brentano F. Selected works. Moscow: Dom intellektualnoy knigi, 1996).
3. Brentano F. (1959) Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt II. Unveränderter Nachdruck. Hamburg: F. Meiner.
4. Bergmann J. (1879) Allgemeine Logik, I. Reine Logik. Berlin: Mittler.
5. Brettler L.A.V. (1973) The Phenomenology of Adolf Reinach: Chapters in the Theory of Knowledge and Legal Philosophy. Montreal: McGill University.
6. Chisholm R. (1982) Homeless Objects. In: Chisholm R. Brentano and Meinong Studies. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.
7. Findlay J.N. (1933) Meinong’s Theory of Objects. London: Oxford University Press.
8. Findlay J.N. (1963) Meinong’s Theory of Objects and Values. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
9. Grossman R. (1995) Thoughts, Objectives, and States of Affairs. Grazer philosophische Studien. 1995. Vol. 50, pp. 163–169.
10. Grossman R. (1998) Wittgenstein and the Problem of Non-Existent States of Affairs. Acta Analytica. Vol. 21, pp. 139–146.
11. Marty A. (1920) On Relations between Grammar and Logic (Russian translation in: Logos. 2004. No. 1, pp. 138–168).
12. Meinong A. (1904) On Theory of Objects (Russian translation in: Epistemology and Philosophy of Science. 2011. No. 1, pp. 198–230).
13. Milkov N. (2002) Lotze’s Concept of State of Affairs and Its Critics. Prima Philosophia. Vol. 15, no. 4.
14. Morscher E. (1986) Propositions and States of Affairs in Austrian Philosophy before Wittgenstein. In: From Bolzano to Wittgenstein: The Tradition of Austrian Philosophy (pp. 75–85). Vienna: Verlag Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.
15. Morscher E. (1990) Judgement-Contents. In: Mulligan K. (Ed.) Mind, Meaning, and Metaphysics: The Philosophy and Theory of Language of Anton Marty. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
16. Mulligan K. (1985) Wie die Sachen sich zueinander verhalten: inside and outside the ‘Tractatus’. Teoria. Logica e filosofia del linguaggio. Vol. 5, pp. 145–174.
17. Mulligan K. (1989) Husserl on States of Affairs in the Logical Investigations. Epistemologia. Vol.12, pp. 204–234.
18. Reinach A. (1911) On the Theory of the Negative Judgment (Russian translation in: Anthology of Realistic Phenomenology. Moscow: Institute St. Thomas, 2006, pp. 481–543).
19. Simons P. (1992) The Old Problem of Complex and Fact. In: Simons P. Philosophy and Logic in Central Europe from Bolzano to Tarski: Selected Essays (pp. 319–339). Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer.
20. Simons P. (1999) Bolzano, Brentano and Meinong: Three Austrian Realists. In: O’Hear A. (Ed.) German Philosophy Since Kant. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
21. Smith B. (1978) An Essay on Formal Ontology. Grazer Philosophische Studien. Vol. 6, pp. 39–62.
22. Smith B. (1994) Austrian Philosophy. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.
23. Smith B. (1996) Logic and the Sachverhalt. In: Albertazzi L.M.L., Poli R. (Eds.) The School of Franz Brentano. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
24. Stumpf K. (1924) Self-Presentation (Russian translation in: Logos. 2003. No. 3, pp. 80–128).
Review
For citations:
Seliverstov V.V. The Сoncept of Sachverhalt: The State of Affairs in the Austrian Philosophy of the 19th Century. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2019;62(1):106-120. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30727/0235-1188-2019-62-1-106-120
Email this article 