http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
김위성 釜山大學校 1992 人文論叢 Vol.41 No.1
The concept of Korean 뜻 has both the element of meaning and the one of will. Therefore the illumination of its structure is aided by the comparison between the philosophical systems of meaning and will, e.g. Schlick's philosophy of meaning and Nietzsche's philosophy of will. Meaning and will must be comprehended through 뜻, and can have their proper place and be united into one. 뜻. -is and 뜻, does are the results of the process, and they are the moments which show various forms of 뜻.
김위성 釜山大學校 1982 人文論叢 Vol.22 No.1
This paper deals with the similarity between the starting points of Kantian and Popperian epistemologies. In apparent differences of two systems, we can find the similar lines of pursuing epistemological questions behind them : they are problems of induction and those of justification about the knowledge. Through the comparison, we find out the following 1. Kantian philosophy and Popperian philosophy have many similar points, and, if adequately modified, can be fitted each other in the main structure. 2. Each system makes possible a new interpretation of the other one by referring to its relevant parts.
金渭星 釜山水産大學校 1974 論文集 Vol.13 No.-
This paper is concerned with the problem of the nature of geometry as knowledge. It analyzes the nature from epistemological and logical viewpoints. According to the dichotomy of knowledge into the empirical and the a priori, firstly the systematization of geometry on the foundation of the former is pursued in vain for inseparable non-empirical elements within the axioms and definitions. And then the way of the latter is followed in Kantian Philosophy of Mathematics, which sees geometrical knowledge as synthetic judgment a priori. He presupposes the a priori and synthetic character of geometry as the fact found in our knowledge and seeks its source in the pure intuition. Another dichotomy of analytic-synthetic distinction in Kant contributes to the a priori geometry, but becomes outdated because it disregards that subject-predicate relation is not universal in the judgments. It comes out that explicit definitions are ambiguous and confounded in facing the adequate definitions. They are revealed as implicit definitions which Formalism uses in making geometry strict and consistent. Formalism makes it possible to comprehend non-Euclidean geometries in compatible way with the Euclidean in their formal logical structures. Pure geometry is uninterpreted and founded only on Formalism. But the choice of geometry asks criteria by which a geometry is found most adequate to explain and describe the world of experience. Conventionalism holds that all systems of geometry are only conventions and they are chosen only by the principle of simplicity in application to the facts. But it fails to make strict distinction between mathematical geometry as pure and physical geometry as applied.