慶應義塾大学学術情報リポジトリ(KOARA)KeiO Associated Repository of Academic resources

慶應義塾大学学術情報リポジトリ(KOARA)

Home  »»  Listing item  »»  Detail

Detail

Item Type Article
ID
AN00100104-19750600-0057  
Preview
Image
thumbnail  
Caption  
Full text
AN00100104-19750600-0057.pdf
Type :application/pdf Download
Size :1.3 MB
Last updated :Jan 18, 2012
Downloads : 642

Total downloads since Jan 18, 2012 : 642
 
Release Date
 
Title
Title 「説明」から「理解」へ : 歴史的理解の問題へ向けて  
Kana 「セツメイ」 カラ 「リカイ」 エ : レキシテキ リカイ ノ モンダイ エ ムケテ  
Romanization "Setsumei" kara "rikai" e : rekishiteki rikai no mondai e mukete  
Other Title
Title From "Explanation" to "Understanding"  
Kana  
Romanization  
Creator
Name 増沢, 照司  
Kana マスザワ, ショウジ  
Romanization Masuzawa, Shoji  
Affiliation 慶応義塾大学大学院博士課程  
Affiliation (Translated) Keio University  
Role  
Link  
Edition
 
Place
東京  
Publisher
Name 三田史学会  
Kana ミタ シガクカイ  
Romanization Mita shigakukai  
Date
Issued (from:yyyy) 1975  
Issued (to:yyyy)  
Created (yyyy-mm-dd)  
Updated (yyyy-mm-dd)  
Captured (yyyy-mm-dd)  
Physical description
 
Source Title
Name 史学  
Name (Translated) The historical science  
Volume 46  
Issue 4  
Year 1975  
Month 6  
Start page 57(409)  
End page 77(429)  
ISSN
03869334  
ISBN
 
DOI
URI
JaLCDOI
NII Article ID
 
Ichushi ID
 
Other ID
 
Doctoral dissertation
Dissertation Number  
Date of granted  
Degree name  
Degree grantor  
Abstract
歴史的説明のいわゆるポッパー・ヘンペル理論に対する最近の重要な批判は、ドレイ、ドナガン、ミンクらによって与えられている。私は一でこれらの批判を補強し、二でこの説明問題に、ポッパー・ヘンペル理論とは異なった視点をスケッチ風に導入してみたい。
In Part One of this paper I shall comment on the Popper-Hempel theory of historical explanation. I will point out the case which conforms to the deductive-nomological model of explanation, but nevertheless cannot properly be called explanation. However, the emphasis of my criticism will be placed on the inadequacy of the inductive-probabilistic model of explanation which has been formulated by C.G. Hempel. This model should be considered a device for prediction rather than a model of explanation. In Part Two I shall try to construct what might be called a Collingwoodian position of historical understanding. In order to characterize the semantic nature of historical description, I will introduce the categorical distinction between action and event, in terms of which some of the confusions underlying the positivist's or 'science-oriented' conception of history can be revealed and cleared up. Predicates of sentences can be classified in two ways with regard to their relationship to subjects: some sort of predicates such as 'promise' cannot be attributed to their subjects, while others can be, even if the subjects have no understanding of the predicates. I suppose that the meanings of such predicates are intrinsically combined with the internal ideas of the people to which these predicates are attributed, and that, therefore, they cannot be reduced to any sort of physicalistic terms. My research results suggest a relevant reason why history is, and should be, narrated in everyday language rather than in 'quantified' terms. I will also advocate a humanistic method of historical inquiry, pointing out that we cannot evaluate, even identify, the actions of our historical figures, unless we take the same criteria of judgement as those which they embraced. Through these arguments I hope to reinterpret such terms as 're-enactment' or 'understanding' (Verstehen) which were familiar to the Neo-Kantians and Idealists.
 
Table of contents

 
Keyword
 
NDC
 
Note
論文
 
Language
日本語  
Type of resource
text  
Genre
Journal Article  
Text version
publisher  
Related DOI
Access conditions

 
Last modified date
Jan 18, 2012 09:00:00  
Creation date
Jan 18, 2012 09:00:00  
Registerd by
mediacenter
 
History
 
Index
/ Public / Faculty of Letters / The historical science / 46 (1974) / 46(4) 197506
 
Related to