럿셀哲學에 있어 問題點의 分析 : 類型의 理論과 批判

崔逸雲 대한철학회 1979 哲學硏究 Vol.27 No.-

認識次元의 設定을 爲한 試論

崔逸雲 全北大學校 1973 論文集 Vol.15 No.-

주체적 인식의 차원과 객체적 인식의 차원에 관한 것을 개괄적으로 해명하면 우리가 그동안 본질적으로 대립하는 성질을 가졌기 때문에 통일할 수 없는 것으로만 생각하여 오던 여러 가지 문제가 인식의 차원의 설정으로써 해명된다는 것이다. 자유성과 필연성, 당위성과 존재성, 목적성과 기계성의 문제도 그렇다. 그것은 칸트가 생각한 것 같이 요청으로서만 인정하여야 할 것도 또 그러한 방법 이외에 증명되지 않는 것도 아니며 레이몽이나 Malebanche가 생각한 것처럼 불가사의한 것도 아니다. 그것들이 증명되지 않고 요청으로 밖에 인정할 수 없다거나 또는 불가사의하였다는 것은 그들이 인식의 차원이라는 것을 이해하지 못하였기 때문이다. 물론 우리의 일상의 사고에 있어서는 이 양자의 구분은 편리하기도 하다. 다시 말하면 자유성과 필연성, 당위성과 존재성, 목적성과 기계성을 구분하여 생각하는 것은 퍽 편리하다. 그러나 그렇다고 해서 그것들의 본질이 이질적이라 생각하고 있다면 그것은 잘못된 사고방식이다. 그러므로 인식의 차원을 이해하고 그러한 구분을 받아들이면서 그것의 통일적인 성격을 이해한다면 인식에 있어서 종래의 사고방식으로는 생각지도 못할 시야가 전개될 것이다.

Russell哲學에 있어서 問題点의 分析 (2) : 數理와 論理 및 記述

崔逸雲 全北大學校 1979 論文集 Vol.21 No.-

This treatise is not concerned with all the fields of Russell's philosophy, but only with some parts of it. I think more problematic issues in Russell's philosophy are as follows : (1) the Theory of Type (2) the theory that mathematics can be deduced from logical principles (3) the Theory of Description I have written a treatise concerning the Theory of Type in my own critical viewpoint. Now I intend to write about Russell's though that mathematics can be deduced from logical principles, that is, logic and mathematics have the same ground in their foundation. But inspite of his efforts, he could not succeed in making an adequate verification in his illustrations. First, Russell had tried to find the principles in the logical constants and implication. But I firmly assert that we could not admit such words as principles, because these are also found out in the proposition of sciences such as physics, chemistry, botany, zoology, philosophy, etc… Secondly, Russell's ten axioms could not elucidate the principles that logic and mathematics have the same foundation, hence axioms have no strict relation to logic and mathematics. Though axioms are divided into many kinds, the main characters of them are nothing but implication. Thirdly, all individuals and concrete statements are reduced to propositional function in Russll's method. But I think that most statements have become obscure by such a method, that perhaps such a method is originated from the plan of simbolization of everything. And so I could not agree with him. Fourthly, Rusesll himself who was against Hegel's idealism fell into the hole of the same idealism as result of taking all mathematics as nonempirical elements origination from universality. Such a method can not help being self-contradiction though Russell thinks his method is scientific and accurate. Fifthly, "description" is also a very obscure theory. Russell named a sentence the infiniite-description, when it has article "a" before the predicative word, and definite description, when it has "the" before the predicative word. More accurately speaking, infinite descriptionis a phrase of a-so-and-so, and definite description is the-so-and-so. Again Russell selected in words, a, the any, some, all, and every, in "on denoting" and "Denothing Phrase", but its elucidation is not so clear. To sum up, above mentioned problems are the most problematical in Russell's though, But as far as I have researched it, it is the most confused and controversial theory, I think.

도이체 이데오로기의 批判(下)

崔逸雲 全北大學校 1977 論文集 Vol.19 No.-

觀念史觀의 批判

崔逸雲 전북대학교 1971 論文集 Vol.13 No.-

도이체 이데오로기에의 批判(上)

崔逸雲 全北大學校 1976 論文集 Vol.18 No.-

The points of the present theory are to be classified into two parts of contents; one is that of chapter 1,2, and 3, and the other that of chapter 4 and 5. Chapter 1 is on "Die heilige Familie oder Kritik der kritischen Kritik", chapter 2 on Bruno Bauer and his fellow scholars' speculative secret, and chapter 3 on Bruno Bauer and his problems. As is generally known, "Die deutsche Ideologie" contains the confutation theory by Marx and Engels against the contemporaries' theories. Then his style is too difficult and satrical to catch the meaning, and so I tried to make clear the meaning of the terms and appended some notes. In 1843, Bruno Bauer published the Journal "Allgemeine Literaturzeitung" at Scharteburg, in which he tried to criticize liberalism and radicalism, and their meaningless influence on society at that time. At the same times Marx and Engels wrote against Bruno Bauer and his brother's thought expressed in the journal "Allgemeine Literaturzeitung", Thus they criticized each other. And Marx and Engels published "Die heilige Familie...". in which they criticized Bruno Bauer's thought in "Allgemeine Literaturzeitung". In chapter 2, I stated Marx and Engels pointed out in "Die heilige Familie" that Bruno Bauer and Szeliga could not diverge from speculative secret. In other words, they pointed out the mistakes made by Bruno Bauer and Szeliga in explaining how the secret in idealistic thinking method works on general social life. Especially they criticized severely a popular novel "Mystres de Paris" written by Sue. In chapter 3, I stated Marx and Engels criticized in "Die heilige Familie..." Bruno Bauer's thought in regard to the problem of the Jews, political affairs, philosophy and socialism. Especially they criticized Hegels "die konkrete Allgemeinheit" in the viewpoint of dialectical materialism. Hegel's "die konkerete Allgemeinheit" means that the universal precedes the concrete. This reminds us of the arguement on universality in the Middle Ages, but Marx proved Hegel's theory to be false. Marx proved that the universal does not contain the concrete, nor makes it appear, and that the universal does not contain the concrete, nor makes it appear, and that the universal is extracted from the concrete. In chapter 4, Marx and Engels' criticism of Feuerbach's thought is stated. As is generally known, Feuerbach is well known for his "Wesen der Christentums" and "Vorlesung ueber das Wesen der Religion". He believed that God as well as Religion has his origin in human nature. He believed that God did not create man, but man created God. In this respect, we can be sure that Feuerbach denied the conventional view of religion. Marx and Engels may have agreed to this revolutional view of religion and they even praised Feuerbach. But they could not entierly bring themselves to endorse Feuerbach's theory. Marx and Engels reproached Feuerbach for being superficial because he failed to grasp the true meaning of life and religion from the viewpoint of their communism and historical materialism. Of course they did the same to those who did not follow them. Then what is my viewpoint of Marx and Engels thought? In chapter 5, I criticized Marx and Engels' thought. Here I expressed my point of view, criticizing Feuerbach's, Hegel's, and Stirner's philosophy, including Marx and Engels' view of history itself. I insist that the motive power of our history is not material productivity or material productive relation, but our spiritual power; that our history makes development when it has a positive thinking method, but it is depressed and decayed when it is under the control of a speculative thinking method. According to this theory, we shall be able to find out the dircetion of history. I criticized the works of Marx and Engels from the above point of view.

原則分析論의 批判

崔逸雲 全北大學校 1962 論文集 Vol.4 No.-

無와 創造

崔逸雲 全北大學校 1964 論文集 Vol.6 No.-

唯物史觀의 批判

崔逸雲 全北大學校 1970 論文集 Vol.12 No.-

Kant에 있어서 "純粹悟性槪念의 演繹"은 成功 하였는가?

崔逸雲 全北大學校 1957 論文集 Vol.1 No.-

주지하는 바이지만 Kant는 그의 철학의 입장을 코페루니크스의 사고방식에서 찾았고 또 그러한 입장에서 순수이성비판의 전체계를 주었던 것이다. 그에 의하면 우리의 인식이 대상에 의준(richten sieh nach)하는 것이 아니라, 대상이 우리의 인식에 의준한다고 본다. 이것은 실로 관념론과 실존론의 분기점에서 관념론에로 떨어지는 제1보였지만 보다도 Kant가 이러한 입장에 서서 시간과 공간을 주관적대상으로볼 뿐아니라, 순수오성개념 즉 범주까지도 그러한것으로 본것은 우리로서는 십분 주의가 요하는 점이다. 이에 있어서 필연적으로 문제가 되지 않을 수 없는 것이 주관적대상으로서 이러한 오성개념이 어떻게 하여 객관에 타당할수가 있는가 하는 것이다. 이것이 해명되지 않는다면 순수오성개념이란 하나의 허구에 지나지 못하는 것이되고 만다. Kant는 그의 당연한 이론적결과로서 이 문제에 봉착하였던 것이다.