Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 2

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Condillac
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
EN
The paper describes the conception of logic in Polish didactics authored by the Commission of National Education (KEN), an important educational institution of the European  Enlightenment. Since the documents of the Commission refer to a vision of science presented by such influential works then as the Encyclopédie ou dictionnaire universel raisonné [Great French Encyclopedia], the paper compares the requirements from the Commission’s programmer with the encyclopaedic entries that entail logical problems broadly understood. It turns out that the Commission, following the Encyclopédie, not only recommended a list of textbooks of logic but also shared its eclectic vision of logic. Although it is characteristic of modernity to take a relative approach to the importance of traditional logic, transformed into science on method, or literally an outline of epistemology, understood according to É. Condillac as a specific form of metaphysics, nevertheless some elements of logic were eclectically made valid. This logic, from the times of I. Kant, has been defined as formal logic. Practical logical skills were preferred to the knowledge of logical theories. At the same time attention was paid to the meaning of natural logical skills, and drills in logical reasoningwhen studying languages and mathematics. Despite preferences for the analytical method they also noticed the importance of synthetic method. It seems also that although the documents of the Commission do not say anything about the teaching of syllogistic issues, in didactic practice inspired by the Encyclopédie in the schools controlled by the Commission, the room was made to teach these problems. Condillac’s book was preferred in the schools controlled by the Commission, nevertheless, it was not, as in the case of other textbooks, a must on the reading list, an obligatory reading matter, therefore it was not published in Poland. The conception of logic presented by the Commission as modelled on the Encyclopédie managed to avoid the one-sidedness of Condillac’s approach, the approach that in fact eliminated the teaching of logic.
EN
Carl Menger – as earlier Etienne de Condillac, Le Trosne, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John S. Mill, Jean-Baptiste Say, William S. Jevons – has associated the notion of value with the human need. Unlike his predecessors, Menger has not accepted the notion of commodity utility as a measure of its value. In that way, Menger has challenged a thesis deeply rooted in the history of economic thought that the notion of value denotes the commodity attribute that makes each good capable to meet human need. In Menger’s value theory, the notion of value belongs the category of human judgment on the importance of good for human life and well being, i.e. for his need satisfaction. It has been shown that Menger’s approach to the commodity value let us introduce the concept of aequalitas valoris to the theory of commodity exchange and neither “value in use” nor “value in exchange” can be treated as categories of commodity value theory.
PL
Carl Menger – podobnie jak wcześniej Etienne de Condillac, Le Trosne, Adam Smith, David Ricardo, John S. Mill, Jean-Baptiste Say, William S. Jevons – łączył pojęcie wartości z potrzebą. W przeciwieństwie jednak do swoich poprzedników Menger nie uznał kategorii użyteczności rzeczy jako miary ich wartości. Zakwestionował tym samym pogląd głęboko zakorzeniony w historii myśli ekonomicznej, iż wartość jest własnością dobra, która sprawia, iż jest ono zdolne do zaspokojenia potrzeb człowieka. W systemie Carla Mengera wartość dobra należy do kategorii sądu o wadze potrzeby dla dobrobytu jednostki. W artykule pokazano, iż Mengerowskie ujęcie wartości pozwala wprowadzić pojęcie aequalitas valoris do teorii wymiany, a pojęć „wartość wymienna” oraz „wartość użytkowa” nie można traktować jako przynależnych do teorii wartości dóbr.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.