The philosophical analysis of the process of idealisation has developed in two independent directions. In the framework of analytical philosophy of science, idealisation is understood as a simplification or deformation of the description of a certain appearance or natural law. In the framework of the phenomenological tradition idealisation is understood as the quantification of a certain phenomenon of the life-world. The aim of this paper is to give an exposition of these two conceptions of idealisation and to attempt to clarify their mutual relation. In conclusion I sketch a third conception of idealisation which has not received attention in the literature.
SK
Filozofická analýza procesu idealizácie je rozvíjaná v dvoch nezávislých smeroch. V rámci analytickej filozofie vedy je idealizácia chápaná ako zjednodušenie či deformácia opisu určitého javu či prírodného zákona. V rámci fenomenologickej tradície je idealizácia chápaná ako kvantifikácia určitého fenoménu žitého sveta. Cieľom predkladanej state je obe tieto pojatia idealizácie stručne predstaviť a pokúsiť sa objasniť ich vzájomný vzťah. V závere state je načrtnuté tretie pojatie idealizácie, ktorému zatiaľ v literatúre nebola venovaná pozornosť.
2
Dostęp do pełnego tekstu na zewnętrznej witrynie WWW
The aim of this article is to critically appraise the philosophical reflexions of chaos theory which have been advanced in the texts of Stephen Kellert and Peter Smith. This aim constitutes, at the same time, a necessary propaedeutic to the actual investigation of the semantic view of theories in the context of chaos theory. The text itself is divided into three parts: (1) Transcendental impossibility, (2) Epistemological chaos, and (3) A new idealisation. In the first and second parts, the author begins by examining Kellert’s conception of the transcendental impossibility of certain predictions in chaos theory, subsequently he concentrates on the set of properties of the models of chaos theory (holism, experimentalism and diachrony), and finally on the character of the understanding which is arrived at by chaos theory (qualitative forecast, the uncovering of geometrical mechanisms and the discovery of order). In the third part, the author investigates the question of the character of the idealisation that reveals itself in the context of fractal geometry, constituting the backbone of chaos theory. The key question here is whether objects with infinite complexity can be appropriate models for physical reality.
CS
Cílem předloženého textu je kritické zhodnocení filosofických reflexí teorie chaosu, které byly předloženy především v textech Stephena Kellerta a Petera Smithe. Tento cíl je přitom potřebnou propedeutikou k vlastnímu zkoumání sémantického pojetí teorií (semantic view of theories) v kontextu teorie chaosu. Vlastní text je rozčleněn na tři části: (1) Transcendentální nemožnost, (2) Epistemologie chaosu a (3) Nová podoba idealizace. V první a druhé části autor nejprve zkoumá Kellertovo pojetí transcendentální nemožnosti určitých predikcí v teorii chaosu, následně se soustřeďuje na sadu vlastností modelů teorie chaosu (holismus, experimentalimus a diachronie) a konečně na povahu porozumění, kterého je v teorii chaosu dosahováno (kvalitativní předpovědi, odhalování geometrických mechanismů a nalézání řádu). Ve třetí části autor zkoumá otázku povahy idealizace, objevující se v souvislosti s fraktální geometrií a představující páteř teorie chaosu. Klíčovou otázkou přitom je, zda objekty s nekonečnou složitostí mohou být vhodnými modely fyzikální reality.
In the hereby article the author has presented the discourse about the mechanism of price bubbles. It has been assumed, that the recognition and explanation of price bubbles morphology must rely on the deciphering the synergistic effects of individuals behavior. The sources of price bubbles have been reduced to four main groups of factors originating in the human choice limitations, e.g.: material and economic constraints as well as institutional and psychological limitations. It has also been recognized, that the descriptive model of price bubbles explanation is no longer useful in the essential sense, while it does not show the core of the problem. That brings back the necessity of understanding their divers ity where pointing out the factors of constitutive and regulative nature, as well as defining the interaction (feedback) specifi city. It has also been assumed, that understanding of the nomological differences within the price bubbles theme requires the repeal of the orthodox economics theory basic assumptions. It has been assumed, that although the price bubbles phenomenon has been characteristic for many markets, its morphology differs. One can easily observe the differences between price bubbles morphology of hi-tech stock (or the stock market in the wider sense), price bubbles morphology of the land market (rigid supply resources) and fi nally the price bubble on the real estate market.
JavaScript jest wyłączony w Twojej przeglądarce internetowej. Włącz go, a następnie odśwież stronę, aby móc w pełni z niej korzystać.