{"id":6753,"date":"2023-01-27T19:23:20","date_gmt":"2023-01-27T17:23:20","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/?page_id=6753"},"modified":"2023-05-21T14:24:41","modified_gmt":"2023-05-21T12:24:41","slug":"sfera-si-continutul-notiunilor-la-ion-petrovici-si-edmond-goblot-o-inadvertenta-istoriografica","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/volumul-18-2022\/sfera-si-continutul-notiunilor-la-ion-petrovici-si-edmond-goblot-o-inadvertenta-istoriografica\/","title":{"rendered":"Sfera \u0219i con\u021binutul no\u021biunilor la Ion Petrovici \u0219i Edmond Goblot: o inadverten\u021b\u0103 istoriografic\u0103 | Ovidiu G. Grama"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Sfera \u0219i con\u021binutul no\u021biunilor la Ion Petrovici \u0219i Edmond Goblot: o inadverten\u021b\u0103 istoriografic\u0103<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Ovidiu G. Grama<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Institutul de Filosofie \u0219i Psihologie \u201eC. R\u0103dulescu-Motru\u201d al Academiei Rom\u00e2ne<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
Extension and Intension of Concepts in Ion Petrovici and Edmond Goblot:<\/strong>
An Inadvertence of Historians<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Abstract:<\/strong> <\/strong>The paper tries to identify the imperfections of a small book review from 1920, which had a disproportionate impact on subsequent Romanian philosophical histo\u00adri\u00adography. The review in question is signed by Petre Andrei; he points to a parallel between certain novel ideas of the logicians Ion Petrovici and Edmond Goblot, drawing atten\u00adtion to the complete similarity of their conceptions and the priority that the former would have over the latter regarding their thoughts on the relationship between the inten\u00adsion and the extension of logical concepts. But the ideas were not so novel, the similarity was not so complete, and the priority did not exist, or at least this is what I will try to establish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keywords:<\/strong> law of inverse variation of extension and intension; connotation; com\u00adpre\u00adhension; concept; idea; static and dynamic perspectives; historical priority; Petre Andrei; Ion Petrovici; Edmond Goblot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\u00cen bun\u0103 \u0219i asumat\u0103 descenden\u021b\u0103 maiorescian\u0103, Ion Petrovici a dat de-a lungul \u00een\u00adtre\u00adgii sale activit\u0103\u021bi o aten\u021bie statornic\u0103 logicii \u0219i problemelor ei. Dintre numeroasele scri\u00aderi de logic\u0103 pe care le-a publicat, cea mai \u00eensemnat\u0103 este considerat\u0103 \u00eendeob\u0219te lu\u00adcra\u00adrea sa Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em>, ap\u0103rut\u0103 \u00een 1910, cu o a doua edi\u021bie \u00een 1924 (edi\u021bie \u00een care au\u00adto\u00adrul s-a limitat, dup\u0103 cum spune \u00een prefa\u021b\u0103, \u201enumai la complet\u0103ri u\u0219oare \u0219i ne\u00eensem\u00adnate corec\u021biuni\u201d[1]<\/sup><\/a>). Cartea este f\u0103r\u0103 \u00eendoial\u0103 de mare importan\u021b\u0103 pentru evolu\u021bia discipli\u00adnei logicii \u00een cul\u00adtura filosofic\u0103 rom\u00e2neasc\u0103; mai mult dec\u00e2t at\u00e2t: ea poate fi citit\u0103 \u0219i as\u00adt\u0103zi cu folos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Exist\u0103 o mare varietate de chestiuni substan\u021biale ce ar merita discutate[2]<\/sup><\/a> pornind de la Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em>; totu\u0219i, \u00een articolul de fa\u021b\u0103 \u00eemi propun s\u0103 abordez numai un subiect punctu\u00adal \u0219i care nici nu prive\u0219te \u00een mod direct interven\u021biile lui Petrovici \u00een logi\u00adc\u0103, ci mai degrab\u0103 oblic, prin mijlocirea unui am\u0103nunt al manierei \u00een care a fost recep\u00adtat\u0103 cartea sa. Mai precis: atunci c\u00e2nd se vorbe\u0219te despre aceast\u0103 lucrare \u00een istorio\u00adgrafia filo\u00adsofic\u0103 rom\u00e2neasc\u0103, se men\u021bioneaz\u0103 aproape invariabil \u0219i numele filosofului \u0219i logi\u00adcia\u00adnului francez Edmond Goblot (1858\u20131935), autor al unui cunoscut tratat de lo\u00adgic\u0103[3]<\/sup><\/a>, \u0219i se semnaleaz\u0103 priori\u00adtatea pe care Petrovici ar avea-o fa\u021b\u0103 de el \u00een ce prive\u0219te tratarea raportului dintre intensiunea \u0219i extensiunea no\u021biunilor. Petre Andrei este cel care afirm\u0103 pentru prima oar\u0103 existen\u021ba acestei priorit\u0103\u021bi[4]<\/sup><\/a>; o face \u00eentr-o scurt\u0103 inter\u00adven\u00ad\u021bie, de pu\u021bin peste o pagin\u0103, ap\u0103rut\u0103 la rubrica \u201eRecenzii\u201d din Via\u021ba Rom\u00e2neasc\u0103<\/em>, nr. 10 din 1920. Aceast\u0103 recenzie \u0219i influen\u021ba ei asupra mai tuturor considera\u021biilor ulterioare referi\u00adtoare la Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em> a lui Ion Petrovici constituie obiectul direct al textului de fa\u021b\u0103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

M\u0103 voi opri \u00een acest articol asupra a patru imperfec\u021biuni pe care consider c\u0103 le are recenzia lui Petre Andrei \u0219i care au constituit o surs\u0103 de dificult\u0103\u021bi pentru comen\u00adtatorii \u0219i istoricii filosofiei de mai t\u00e2rziu.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
1. Titlul versus con\u021binutul recenziei<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

\u00cen primul r\u00e2nd, Petre Andrei promite prin titlul recenziei sale[5]<\/sup><\/a> s\u0103 se refere la dou\u0103 c\u0103r\u021bi de logic\u0103: Trait\u00e9 de logique<\/em> a lui Edmond Goblot, cu o prefa\u021b\u0103 de \u00c9mile Boutroux, care ap\u0103ruse cu doi ani \u00eenainte, \u00een 1918, iar acum era la a doua edi\u021bie, \u0219i Teoria no\u00ad\u021bi\u00aduni\u00adlor <\/em>a lui Petrovici, ap\u0103rut\u0103 cu 10 ani \u00eenainte, \u00een 1910 (o a doua edi\u021bie va ap\u0103rea ulterior, \u00een 1924).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Adev\u0103rul este \u00eens\u0103 c\u0103 recenzia nu aminte\u0219te deloc de Teoria no\u021biunilor <\/em>a lui Pe\u00adtro\u00advici. Ceea ce face de fapt Petre Andrei este s\u0103 pun\u0103 \u00een paralel o idee a lui Goblot din Trait\u00e9 de logique<\/em> \u0219i una dintr-un alt studiu al lui Petrovici, \u201eLogica \u0219i August[e] Comte\u201d, ap\u0103rut \u00een perioada iulie\u2013noiembrie 1914, \u00een Convorbiri literare<\/em>[6]<\/sup><\/a>. Mai exact, Petre Andrei trimite la sec\u021biunea ap\u0103rut\u0103 \u00een septembrie. Nu exist\u0103 \u00een con\u021binutul recen\u00adziei nicio refe\u00adrire la Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Poate p\u0103rea o problem\u0103 minor\u0103, dar consecin\u021ba incongruen\u021bei dintre titlul recen\u00adziei \u0219i con\u021binutul ei a fost c\u0103 majorita\u00adtea comentatorilor \u0219i istoricilor[7]<\/a>,[8]<\/a> <\/sup>se refer\u0103 la Teo\u00adria no\u021bi\u00adu\u00adnilor<\/em> ca fiind locul \u00een care apare ideea discutat\u0103 de Petre Andrei, c\u00e2nd de fapt este studiul \u201eLogica \u0219i August[e] Comte\u201d din Convorbiri literare<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
2. \u201eExact aceea\u0219i concep\u021bie\u201d<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

\u00cen al doilea r\u00e2nd, Petre Andrei consider\u0103 c\u0103 Goblot \u0219i Petrovici au \u00eentr-o anumit\u0103 privin\u021b\u0103 \u201eaceea\u0219i concep\u021bie, aproape cu acelea\u0219i exemple\u201d[9]<\/sup><\/a>. Concep\u021bia despre care este vorba e cea referitoare la raportul dintre m\u0103rimea con\u021binutului \u0219i m\u0103ri\u00admea sfe\u00adrei no\u021biu\u00adnilor. \u00cencep\u00e2nd cu Logica de la Port-Royal<\/em>[10]<\/sup><\/a>, se distinge explicit \u00eentre con\u021bi\u00adnutul unei no\u021biuni (numit \u0219i intensiune<\/em>, conota\u021bie<\/em> sau compre\u00adhen\u00adsiune<\/em>) \u0219i sfera acesteia (numit\u0103 \u0219i exten\u00adsiune<\/em> sau denota\u021bie<\/em>)[11]<\/sup><\/a>. De asemenea, se accept\u0103 \u00een general ideea c\u0103 sfera \u0219i con\u021bi\u00adnutul variaz\u0103 invers propor\u021bional. Se vorbe\u0219te chiar despre o \u201elege a varia\u00ad\u021biei inverse a extensiunii \u00een rela\u021bie cu intensiunea\u201d[12]<\/sup><\/a>. Petre Andrei consider\u0103 c\u0103 Goblot \u0219i Pe\u00adtro\u00advici se raporteaz\u0103 identic la aceast\u0103 chestiune, \u0219i anume contest\u00e2nd \u00een acela\u0219i fel ideea larg ac\u00adcep\u00adtat\u0103 a varia\u021biei inverse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

El prezint\u0103 pozi\u021bia lui Goblot \u00een felul urm\u0103tor:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[Goblot] admite, contrar p\u0103rerii generale a logicianilor, c\u0103 \u00eentre sfera \u0219i con\u021binutul unei no\u021bi\u00aduni poate fi un perfect acord, nu neap\u0103rat un raport de inversiune. Se poate ca sfera s\u0103 creas\u00adc\u0103 sau s\u0103 descreasc\u0103 odat\u0103 cu con\u021binutul, \u00een cazul c\u00e2nd acesta este privit \u00een mod dina\u00admic<\/em>, ca un gen care se actualizeaz\u0103 \u00een o sum\u0103 de spe\u021be. Dac\u0103 se consider\u0103 drept con\u021binut al conceptu\u00adlui nu o sum\u0103 de caractere speciale, ci totalitatea \u00eensu\u0219irilor indivizilor c\u0103rora li se aplic\u0103 acest concept, atunci \u00eentre con\u021binut \u0219i sfer\u0103 nu mai e un raport de inversiune. Un con\u00adcept gene\u00adral cuprinz\u00e2nd \u00een sine o mul\u021bime de indivizi cu \u00eensu\u0219iri specifice, \u00een mod nece\u00adsar con\u021bi\u00adne, virtual, toate aceste \u00eensu\u0219iri. La un asemenea concept, odat\u0103 cu sfera cre\u0219te \u0219i con\u021bi\u00adnu\u00adtul. De ex.: conceptul genului suprem<\/em> (pe scara vie\u021buitoarelor), av\u00e2nd sfera cea mai \u00eentin\u00ads\u0103, ar trebui s\u0103 fie cel mai s\u0103rac \u00een con\u021binut. Dar, zice Goblot, acest concept are \u201ecuprinsul cel mai bogat \u00een acela\u0219i timp cu sfera cea mai vast\u0103\u201d (p. 115), c\u0103ci nu e numai un concept abstract, ci e \u201eideea universului<\/em> \u00eembr\u0103\u021bi\u0219\u00e2nd detaliul infinit al lucrurilor, obiectul ultim, sco\u00adpul suprem \u0219i de altminteri inaccesibil al \u0219tiin\u021bei omene\u0219ti\u201d (p. 115).[13]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Pu\u021bin mai jos urmeaz\u0103 prezentarea pozi\u021biei lui Petrovici:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u00cen anul 1914 dl Petrovici public\u0103 \u00een \u201eConvorbiri literare\u201d (septembrie) articolele \u201eLogica \u0219i Aug. Comte\u201d, \u00een care exprim\u0103 exact aceea\u0219i concep\u021bie, afirm\u00e2nd c\u0103 \u201eno\u021biunea princi\u00adpiului suprem trebuie\u0219te neap\u0103rat conceput\u0103 ca av\u00e2nd \u0219i sfera mare \u0219i con\u021binutul bogat, ca av\u00e2nd bog\u0103\u021bia con\u021binutului \u00een raport direct cu \u00eentinderea sferei<\/em>\u201d (p. 898). Raportul de in\u00adver\u00adsiune dintre con\u021binut \u0219i sfer\u0103 \u00eenceteaz\u0103 de a mai fi valabil atunci c\u00e2nd nu mai definim con\u00adceptele static<\/em> sau actual<\/em>, ci le privim \u00een mod dinamic<\/em>. De ex., no\u021biunea animal<\/em> are sfera mai mare ca no\u00ad\u021biunea subordonat\u0103 om<\/em>, dar are con\u021binutul mai s\u0103rac, c\u0103ci are mai pu\u00ad\u021bi\u00adne atribute ca no\u00ad\u021bi\u00adu\u00adnea om<\/em>. Dar de fapt \u201e\u00eensu\u0219irile generale ale animalit\u0103\u021bii au devenit r\u00e2nd pe r\u00e2nd, prin diferen\u021biare, diversele specii existente \u0219i s-a produs toat\u0103 varietatea de f\u0103pturi animale. Ani\u00adma\u00adlitatea cuprindea, \u00een mod poten\u021bial, toate variet\u0103\u021bile \u00een care s-a \u00een\u00adtru\u00adpat alternativ; ea cu\u00adprin\u00addea \u00een sine posibilitatea tuturor notelor din con\u021binutul tuturor spe\u021belor animale<\/em>. No\u021biu\u00adnea aceasta, cea mai \u00eentins\u0103 ca sfer\u0103 din seria ei respectiv\u0103, e \u2013 astfel privit\u0103 \u2013 \u0219i cea mai bogat\u0103 \u00een con\u021binut, ca una ce a manifestat \u2013 pus\u0103 \u00een condi\u021bii vari\u00ada\u00adte \u2013 acea puzderie de mo\u00adduri \u0219i \u00eensu\u0219iri care constituiesc ast\u0103zi diversele spe\u021be animale\u201d (pp. 898\u2013899). Tot a\u0219a no\u021biu\u00adnea om<\/em>, de\u0219i are o sfer\u0103 mai mic\u0103, totu\u0219i \u0219i con\u021binutul ei e mai s\u0103rac, deoarece, \u00een orice condi\u00ad\u021bie ar fi privit\u0103, nu va prezenta modurile \u0219i \u00eensu\u0219irile variate ale animalului.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Concluzia tras\u0103 de Petre Andrei din aceast\u0103 punere \u00een paralel, \u0219i anume c\u0103 pozi\u00ad\u021biile celor doi sunt identice, este una specioas\u0103, \u00een primul r\u00e2nd pentru c\u0103, dac\u0103 pozi\u021bia lui Petrovici este \u00eentr-ade\u00adv\u0103r aceasta, pozi\u021bia lui Goblot este expus\u0103 incomplet. Am s\u0103 comentez pu\u021bin \u00een continuare pe marginea ambelor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
2.1. Pozi\u021bia lui Petrovici<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

2.1.1.<\/strong> Se cuvine o precizare \u00een leg\u0103tur\u0103 cu citatele oferite de Petre Andrei din Petro\u00advici. Ele sunt luate din contextul discut\u0103rii ierar\u00adhiei \u0219tiin\u021belor la Comte. Punctul de ve\u00adde\u00adre static<\/em> \u0219i punctul de vedere dinamic<\/em> sunt termeni tehnici ai teoriei comtiene a \u0219ti\u00adin\u00ad\u021bei: fenomenele naturii \u0219i ale societ\u0103\u021bii pot fi abordate dintr-o perspectiv\u0103 static\u0103 (pri\u00advi\u00adtoare la condi\u021biile de existen\u021b\u0103 ale obiectului studiat) sau dintr-una dinamic\u0103 (pri\u00advi\u00adtoare la mi\u0219carea sau evolu\u021bia acestuia). Avem astfel o fizic\u0103 static\u0103 \u0219i una dinamic\u0103, o bio\u00adlo\u00adgie static\u0103 (anatomia) \u0219i una dinamic\u0103 (fi\u00adzio\u00adlogia), o sociologie static\u0103 \u0219i una di\u00adna\u00admic\u0103 etc. Petrovici face un pas mai departe, consider\u00e2nd c\u0103 aceast\u0103 distinc\u021bie \u00ee\u0219i poate g\u0103si aplicarea \u0219i \u00een abordarea teoretic\u0103 a no\u00ad\u021bi\u00adu\u00adnilor, pas pentru care ar fi fost \u00eens\u0103 util\u0103 o explicare mai larg\u0103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.1.2.<\/strong> \u00cen ce prive\u0219te referirile sale la principiul suprem al lu\u00admii, ele sufer\u0103 de o dubl\u0103 ambiguitate: pe de o parte, pare s\u0103 fie vorba \u00een acela\u0219i timp de un principiu \u00een ordine logic\u0103 \u0219i de unul \u00een ordine ontic\u0103; pe de alt\u0103 parte, pare c\u0103 Petrovici con\u00adsi\u00adder\u0103 c\u0103 acest princi\u00adpiu este, \u00een ultim\u0103 analiz\u0103, o no\u021biune, \u0219i anume una care evolueaz\u0103 \u00een planul realului, put\u00e2nd fi astfel privit\u0103 din punct de vedere dina\u00admic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Principiul suprem al lumii nu poate fi, evident, o no\u021biune cu sfera limitat\u0103. Nici o no\u021biune dintre acelea care au, ce e drept, sfera capabil\u0103 s\u0103 cuprind\u0103 totalita\u00adtea fenomenelor univer\u00adsului, dar a c\u0103rei simplitate a fost dob\u00e2ndit\u0103 cu pre\u021bul unei abstrac\u021biuni radicale de bogata varietate a aspectelor lumii. O astfel de no\u021biune e cu necesitate m\u0103rginit\u0103 la singurul element pe care l-a izolat, e pe vecie \u00eencremenit\u0103, incapabil\u0103 de a evo\u00adlua, sco\u021b\u00e2nd din s\u00e2mburele ei cel simplu varietatea de fenomene pe care numai \u00eenl\u0103tur\u00e2ndu-le s-a putut alc\u0103\u00adtui. [\u2026]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Principiul suprem al lumii trebuie s\u0103 fie o no\u021biune care din punct de vedere exterior<\/em> s\u0103 se asemene cu acele ale \u0219tiin\u021belor simple, oferind at\u00e2t o sfer\u0103 capabil\u0103 de universalitate, c\u00e2t \u0219i o aparen\u021b\u0103 de simplicitate. \u00cen mod poten\u021bial \u00eens\u0103 s\u0103 cuprind\u0103 totalitatea modurilor de existen\u021b\u0103 ap\u0103rut\u0103, \u0219i s\u0103 fie o realitate capabil\u0103 de evoluare, izvor\u00e2nd diversitatea, sau legitim\u00e2nd-o cel pu\u021bin.[15]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

La fel \u0219i pentru no\u021biunile subordonate celei supreme: par s\u0103 func\u021bioneze \u0219i \u00een or\u00addi\u00adne logic\u0103, \u0219i \u00een ordine ontic\u0103; de asemenea, ele evolueaz\u0103, permi\u021b\u00e2nd perspectiva di\u00adna\u00admi\u00adc\u0103. Unul dintre citatele la care apeleaz\u0103 Petre Andrei (vezi supra<\/em>) spune c\u0103 \u201e\u00eensu\u00ad\u0219i\u00adrile gene\u00adra\u00adle ale animalit\u0103\u021bii au devenit r\u00e2nd pe r\u00e2nd, prin diferen\u021biare, diversele specii exis\u00adtente \u0219i s-a produs toat\u0103 varietatea de f\u0103p\u00adturi animale\u201d[16]<\/sup><\/a>; iar \u00een cursul s\u0103u de logic\u0103 \u021binut la Universitatea din Ia\u0219i, r\u0103mas sub forma unui rezumat studen\u021besc din 1916[17]<\/sup><\/a>, Petrovici trimite chiar la teoria evolu\u021biei, \u00een\u021beleas\u0103 \u00eentr-o cheie particular\u0103:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Dac\u0103 ne lu\u0103m dup\u0103 teoria evolu\u021biei, dup\u0103 care genul suprem \u201eanimal\u201d [gen suprem doar \u00een seria sa, f\u0103r\u0103 \u00eendoial\u0103] reprezint\u0103 forma ini\u021bial\u0103 din care s-au diferen\u021biat diferitele specii, atunci lucrurile se schimb\u0103; cea mai bogat\u0103 no\u021biune, ca \u0219i con\u021binut poten\u021bial, e no\u021biunea \u201eani\u00admal\u201d, c\u0103ci el, amorf cum e, s\u0103rac \u00een note vizibile, pus \u00een diferite condi\u021bii, a dat na\u0219tere la at\u00e2\u00adtea specii, pe c\u00e2nd \u201eomul\u201d, \u00een orice condi\u021bii l-am pune, nu poate da na\u0219tere la specii a\u0219a de nu\u00adme\u00adroase.[18]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

2.1.3.<\/strong> Critica adus\u0103 de Petrovici legii varia\u021biei inverse a sferei \u00een raport cu con\u021bi\u00adnu\u00adtul no\u00ad\u021bi\u00adunii se g\u0103se\u0219te \u00een Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em>, unde \u00eei este acordat un spa\u021biu \u00eensemnat. Pentru scopurile articolului de fa\u021b\u0103 conteaz\u0103 mai pu\u021bin dac\u0103 ea este sau nu \u00eentemeiat\u0103, \u00een ce m\u0103sur\u0103 este sau nu inovatoare, deoa\u00adrece nu are nicio relevan\u021b\u0103 pentru discu\u021bia din \u201eLogica \u0219i August[e] Comte\u201d, a\u0219a cum par s\u0103 considere unii comentatori[19]<\/sup><\/a>. Este adev\u0103\u00adrat c\u0103 Petrovici trimite la aceast\u0103 critic\u0103 a raportului invers \u00eentr-o not\u0103 din \u201eLogi\u00adca \u0219i August[e] Comte\u201d, dar este numai o men\u021bionare, f\u0103r\u0103 niciun rol \u00een economia argu\u00admen\u00adt\u0103rii. Spune el:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Totu\u0219i, independent de alte critici ce s-ar putea aduce acelui principiu de logic\u0103 formal\u0103 [aici intervine nota: \u201eA se vedea I. Petrovici, Teoria no\u021biunilor, Cap. IV\u201d], trebuie\u0219te s\u0103 fim aten\u021bi asupra faptului c\u0103, aplicabil atunci c\u00e2nd privim lucrurile \u00een mod static, \u00eenceteaz\u0103 s\u0103 se mai aplice c\u00e2nd le putem privi dinamic.[20]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

A\u0219adar, Petrovici \u00eensu\u0219i ne spune limpede: criticile pe care le aduce \u201eacelui prin\u00adci\u00adpiu de logic\u0103 formal\u0103\u201d (legea varia\u021biei inverse) \u00een Teoria no\u021biu\u00adni\u00adlor<\/em> sunt independente de con\u00adsi\u00addera\u021biile din \u201eLogica \u0219i August[e] Comte\u201d, unde important\u0103 devine distinc\u021bia din\u00adtre punctul de vedere static \u0219i cel dinamic. Aici nu avem de-a face cu o critic\u0103 a prin\u00adci\u00adpiului, ci cu situarea \u00eentr-un punct de vedere (perspectiva dinamic\u0103) \u00een care el nu se mai aplic\u0103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
2.2. Pozi\u021bia lui Goblot<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

2.2.1.<\/strong> Cu privire la rela\u021bia dintre sfera (extension<\/em>) \u0219i con\u021binutul (compr\u00e9hension<\/em>) no\u021biu\u00adnilor, Goblot este foarte clar: ele variaz\u0103 invers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

C\u00e2nd un termen este cuprins \u00een extensiune \u00eentr-un altul, al doilea este cuprins \u00een comprehen\u00adsiu\u00adne \u00een cel dint\u00e2i. Extensiunea \u0219i comprehensiunea conceptelor sunt, a\u0219adar, \u00een raport in\u00advers.[21]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

C\u00e2nd Petre Andrei spune c\u0103 Goblot \u201eadmite c\u0103 [\u2026] \u00eentre sfera \u0219i con\u021binutul unei no\u021bi\u00aduni poate fi un perfect acord, nu neap\u0103rat un raport de inversiune\u201d (vezi supra<\/em>), gre\u0219e\u0219te. Eroarea sa este poate explicabil\u0103 printr-o simpl\u0103 neaten\u021bie, deoarece, dup\u0103 cum se va vedea pu\u021bin mai jos, Goblot schimb\u0103 la un moment dat sensul pe care \u00eel d\u0103 cuv\u00e2n\u00adtu\u00adlui com\u00adpr\u00e9\u00adhension<\/em> (con\u021binutul despre care vorbe\u0219te Andrei), dar o face explicit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2.2.2.<\/strong> Goblot preia de la Keynes[22]<\/sup><\/a> o distinc\u021bie pe care apoi o modi\u00adfi\u00adc\u0103 \u00eentr-un mod particular, aduc\u00e2nd-o \u00een vecin\u0103tatea ideii lui Petro\u00advici. Keynes distinge \u00eentre cono\u00adta\u00ad\u021bie<\/em> \u0219i compre\u00adhen\u00adsiune<\/em>, cuvinte care, a\u0219a cum spuneam mai sus, erau (\u0219i sunt) fo\u00adlo\u00adsite \u00een gene\u00adral \u00een mod nediferen\u021biat. Compre\u00adhen\u00adsiunea unui termen de\u00adsem\u00adneaz\u0103, la Keynes, tota\u00adli\u00adtatea notelor (cunoscute sau necunoscute) care pot fi atri\u00adbu\u00adite aces\u00ad\u00adtuia \u00eentr-o judecat\u0103 uni\u00adver\u00adsal\u0103 adev\u0103rat\u0103 (adic\u0103 tot ce se poate spune adev\u0103rat de\u00adspre toate obiectele pe care le denot\u0103 termenul). Conota\u021bia, \u00een schimb, este con\u00adsti\u00adtu\u00adit\u0103 doar de notele cuprinse \u00een defi\u00adni\u00ad\u021bia termenului, acele caracteristici care sunt nece\u00adsare \u0219i suficiente pentru plasarea unui indi\u00advidual \u00eentr-o clas\u0103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Astfel, \u00een comprehen\u00adsiunea<\/em> termenului de triunghi echilateral intr\u0103 \u0219i nota cores\u00adpun\u00adz\u0103toare propriet\u0103\u021bii de a avea unghiurile egale, \u0219i cea corespunz\u0103toare propriet\u0103\u021bii c\u0103 medianele, mediatoarele, bisectoarele \u0219i \u00een\u0103l\u021bimile triunghiului echilateral coincid, dar nu \u0219i \u00een conota\u021bia<\/em> lui, pentru c\u0103 triun\u00adghiul echila\u00adteral se define\u0219te prin egalitatea latu\u00adri\u00adlor, \u0219i nu prin egalitatea unghiurilor ori prin proprietatea coinciden\u021bei medianelor, me\u00addia\u00adtoa\u00adrelor, bisectoarelor \u0219i \u00een\u0103l\u021bimi\u00adlor. Aceste din urm\u0103 propriet\u0103\u021bi decurg<\/em> din faptul c\u0103 laturile sunt egale. \u00cen terminologia celor cinci voci (praedicabilia<\/em>), conota\u021biei \u00eei cores\u00adpunde de\u00adfi\u00adni\u021bia (gen + di\u00adfe\u00adren\u021b\u0103 specific\u0103), iar com\u00adpre\u00adhensiunii \u00eei corespunde defini\u021bia + propriul (gen + di\u00adfe\u00adren\u021b\u0103 specific\u0103 + propriu).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goblot modific\u0103 radical distinc\u021bia lui Keynes. Dac\u0103 p\u00e2n\u0103 acum folosise compre\u00adhen\u00adsiune<\/em> \u0219i conota\u021bie<\/em> nediferen\u021biat, cu sensul de intensiune, de acum[23]<\/sup><\/a> p\u0103streaz\u0103 acela\u0219i sens pentru co\u00adno\u00adta\u021bie<\/em> (corespunz\u0103tor \u0219i sensului lui Keynes), dar \u00een ce prive\u0219te com\u00adpre\u00adhensiunea, ea nu va fi limitat\u0103 la calit\u0103\u021bile comune<\/em> tuturor obi\u00adec\u00adtelor pe care le denot\u0103 conceptul (ca la Keynes), ci face loc \u00een compre\u00adhen\u00adsiune \u0219i cali\u00adt\u0103\u021bilor care diferen\u021biaz\u0103 \u00eentre ele diversele specii sub\u00ador\u00addonate<\/em> \u0219i celor care decurg din acestea<\/em> (gen + diferen\u021b\u0103 specific\u0103 + propriu + diferen\u021bele specifice ale spe\u00adciilor subordonate + propriile speciilor subordonate). \u00cen cuvintele lui Goblot:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Exist\u0103 \u00een comprehensiunea termenului general o nedeterminare care constituie tocmai gene\u00adra\u00adlitatea sa. Absen\u021ba anumitor atribute este ceea ce face posibil\u0103 diferen\u021bierea lui \u00een specii \u0219i diversitatea infinit\u0103 a indivizilor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dar aceast\u0103 nedeterminare nu este pur\u0103 nega\u021bie; ea este posibilitatea<\/em> unor diferen\u021be spe\u00adci\u00adfice determinate; num\u0103rul \u0219i tr\u0103s\u0103turile speciei nu sunt arbitrare, ele sunt condi\u021bionate de tr\u0103\u00ads\u0103\u00adturile genului; este o proprietate pozitiv\u0103 a genului aceea de a admite cutare \u0219i cutare spe\u00adcii. Astfel, ideea de triunghi<\/em> nu con\u021bine nicio determinare a m\u0103rimii relative a laturilor \u0219i nici a celei a unghiurilor; dar con\u021bine posibilitatea unui unghi drept, posibilitatea a dou\u0103 sau trei laturi egale \u0219i toate consecin\u021bele fiec\u0103reia dintre aceste ipoteze<\/em>. Aceast\u0103 proprietate general\u0103 a triunghiului, c\u0103 suma unghiurilor sale este egal\u0103 cu dou\u0103 unghiuri drepte, \u00eenchide \u00een sine [enveloppe<\/em>] aceast\u0103 proprietate special\u0103 a triunghiului dreptunghic, c\u0103 unghiurile sale ascu\u021bite sunt complementare. Aceast\u0103 alt\u0103 proprietate general\u0103, c\u0103 laturii celei mai mari i se opune unghiul cel mai mare, \u00eenchide \u00een sine aceast\u0103 proprietate special\u0103 a triunghiului isoscel \u0219i a triunghiului echilateral c\u0103 unghiurile opuse laturilor egale sunt egale. Proprietatea speciei nu este un atribut nou care se adaug\u0103 atributelor genului; ea se g\u0103se\u0219te deja printre atributele genului, doar c\u0103 se g\u0103se\u0219te acolo cu titlu de variabil\u0103<\/em>. A trece de la gen la specie \u00eenseamn\u0103 a lua \u00een considerare o anumit\u0103 valoare a acestei variabile, datorit\u0103 interesului de moment pe care \u00eel poate prezenta. Pentru a ob\u021bine specia plec\u00e2nd de la gen, nu este nimic de ad\u0103ugat, ci dimpotriv\u0103, de sc\u0103zut.[24]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Dac\u0103 \u00een\u021belegem comprehensiunea \u00een felul acesta, cu diferen\u021bele specifice \u0219i pro\u00adpri\u00adile cuprinse ca variabile<\/em> printre notele genului, atunci comprehensiunea cre\u0219te \u0219i sca\u00adde odat\u0103 cu ex\u00adten\u00adsiunea (spre deosebire de conota\u021bie, care va continua s\u0103 se supun\u0103 le\u00adgii varia\u021biei in\u00adver\u00adse). De fiecare dat\u0103 c\u00e2nd urc\u0103m o treapt\u0103 pe scara genurilor, ter\u00adme\u00adnul mai general va exclude din conota\u021bia sa ni\u0219te note<\/em> \u0219i va admite \u00een comprehensiunea sa ni\u0219te note noi<\/em> (sub form\u0103 de variabile). (Jacques Maritain remar\u00adc\u0103, \u00een critica pe care i-o face lui Goblot de pe po\u00adzi\u00ad\u021bii neo-scolas\u00adtice[25]<\/sup><\/a>, c\u0103 face \u00een felul acesta din extensiune o parte a com\u00adpre\u00adhen\u00ad\u00adsiu\u00adnii con\u00adcep\u00adtului.) Pe aceast\u0103 baz\u0103, Goblot distinge apoi \u00eentre con\u00adcept<\/em> \u0219i idee<\/em>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Dup\u0103 ce am convenit s\u0103 d\u0103m un sens diferit cuvintelor conota\u021bie<\/em> \u0219i comprehensiune<\/em>, este de preferat s\u0103 nu mai folosim acela\u0219i cuv\u00e2nt, concept<\/em>, pentru a desemna lucruri at\u00e2t de diferite: no\u021biunea abstract\u0103, redus\u0103 la tr\u0103s\u0103turile esen\u021biale sau distinctive, \u0219i no\u021biunea bogat\u0103 care con\u00adsti\u00adtuie cunoa\u0219terea [science<\/em>] total\u0103 a obiectului s\u0103u. Vom spune a\u0219adar conota\u021bia conceptelor<\/em> \u0219i comprehensiunea ideilor<\/em>.[26]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Goblot adopt\u0103 termenul Idee<\/em> cu g\u00e2ndul la Ideile lui Platon, deoarece \u201ecu siguran\u021b\u0103 a\u0219a a \u00een\u021beles Platon ierarhia genurilor\u201d[27]<\/sup><\/a>. El \u021bine s\u0103 precizeze, \u00eentr-un av\u00e2nt speculativ criticat de Maritain[28]<\/sup><\/a>, c\u0103: ide\u00adile nu ar fi mai reale dec\u00e2t lumea sensibil\u0103; totu\u0219i, ele con\u00adsti\u00adtuie singurul obiect ve\u00adri\u00adta\u00adbil al \u0219tiin\u021bei[29]<\/sup><\/a>; ideile nu ar fi temeiul \u0219i cauza lumii sen\u00adsi\u00adbi\u00adle; to\u00adtu\u0219i, ele sunt infinit mai cuprinz\u0103toare dec\u00e2t lucrurile[30]<\/sup><\/a>; ideile nu ar avea o exis\u00adten\u00ad\u021b\u0103 in\u00adde\u00adpendent\u0103 de spirit; totu\u0219i, ele sunt necesit\u0103\u021bi logice \u0219i deci adev\u0103ruri[31]<\/sup><\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
2.3. Paralela Petrovici\u2013Goblot<\/strong><\/h6>\n\n\n\n

Cele dou\u0103 abord\u0103ri au \u00eentr-adev\u0103r ceva \u00een comun: ambele admit \u0219i construiesc po\u00adsi\u00adbilitatea unei perspective \u00een care con\u021binutul unei no\u021biuni (\u00een termenii tehnici ai lui Goblot: com\u00adpre\u00adhensiunea unei idei) cuprinde \u00een sine \u00een mod poten\u021bial notele no\u021biunilor subordonate; \u00een aceast\u0103 perspectiv\u0103, legea varia\u021biei inverse este suspendat\u0103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nu cred \u00eens\u0103 c\u0103 se poate vorbi despre \u201eexact aceea\u0219i concep\u021bie\u201d, a\u0219a cum face Petre An\u00addrei. Exist\u0103 o diferen\u021b\u0103 \u00eensemnat\u0103 \u00eentre cei doi logicieni. Redus\u0103 la mini\u00admum, aceast\u0103 diferen\u021b\u0103 poa\u00adte fi formulat\u0103 astfel: Goblot distinge (strict \u00een plan logic) \u00eentre conota\u021bie \u0219i compre\u00adhen\u00adsiune, deosebind apoi pe aceast\u0103 baz\u0103 \u00eentre dou\u0103 per\u00adspec\u00adtive asupra ace\u00adlu\u00adia\u0219i obiect logic, care sub un aspect va fi numit concept<\/em>, iar sub altul, idee<\/em>; Petrovici dis\u00adtinge (\u00eentr-o manier\u0103 echi\u00advoc\u0103, l\u0103s\u00e2nd loc pentru interpret\u0103ri diverse) \u00eentre o per\u00adspec\u00adtiv\u0103 sta\u00adti\u00adc\u0103 \u0219i una dinamic\u0103 asupra no\u021biunii \u2013 atunci c\u00e2nd este privit\u0103 \u00een per\u00adspec\u00adtiv\u0103 dina\u00admi\u00adc\u0103, no\u021bi\u00adu\u00adnea supraor\u00addo\u00adnat\u0103 are \u0219i con\u021binutul cel mai bogat, \u0219i sfera cea mai extins\u0103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
3. Cu privire la noutatea ideii<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Dup\u0103 cum tocmai am spus, elementul comun al celor dou\u0103 concep\u021bii const\u0103 \u00een indicarea c\u00e2te unei perspective \u00een care sfera \u0219i con\u021binutul nu sunt supuse legii varia\u021biei in\u00adverse; \u00een aceste perspective, con\u021binutul genului include \u0219i notele speciilor subordo\u00adnate. F\u0103r\u0103 s\u0103 afirme explicit, Petre Andrei las\u0103 s\u0103 se \u00een\u021beleag\u0103 c\u0103 aceasta este o idee nou\u0103. Dac\u0103 nu ar fi vorba despre o idee nou\u0103, ce \u00eensemn\u0103tate ar avea \u00eent\u00e2ietatea lui Pe\u00adtro\u00advici fa\u021b\u0103 de Goblot, de ce ar trebui consemnat\u0103?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ideea nu este \u00eens\u0103 nou\u0103. Nu \u0219tiu cine este g\u00e2nditorul care a formu\u00adlat-o pentru pri\u00adma oar\u0103, dar germenii ei pot fi g\u0103si\u021bi la Hegel, dac\u0103 nu mai devreme. Iat\u0103 cum de\u00adscrie John Niemeyer Findlay doc\u00adtri\u00adna lui Hegel de\u00adspre universalitatea concret\u0103:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

[Doctrina lui Hegel despre universalitatea concret\u0103] nu este doctrina c\u0103 o No\u021biune Generic\u0103 include<\/em> toate specific\u0103rile sale ca parte a intensiunii sale, nu este nici doctrina c\u0103 o asemenea No\u021biune conduce \u00een vreun fel oarecare la deducerea precis\u0103 a Speciilor sau Individualelor care cad sub ea. Ceea ce reclam\u0103 ea este c\u0103 un Concept Generic este Concept Generic doar \u00een m\u0103sura \u00een care utilizarea lui implic\u0103 o referire la posibile<\/em> Spe\u00adci\u00adfic\u0103ri \u0219i la posibile<\/em> Aplic\u0103ri Individuale, c\u0103 acestea nu vin la el \u00een mod nea\u0219teptat din afar\u0103, ci reprezint\u0103 \u00eemplinirea a ceea ce este el. Prin urmare, Universalul nu este doar comun Speciilor \u0219i Individualelor pe care le in-formeaz\u0103: el este realizat diferit<\/em> \u00een fiecare dintre ele.[32]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

\u00cen orice caz, ideea poate fi g\u0103sit\u0103 la hegelienii britanici, foarte dedica\u021bi de altfel con\u00adcep\u00adtului de universal concret. Bernard Bosanquet \u0219i F. H. Bradley o discut\u0103 pe larg \u0219i repetat. La Cassirer, conceptul-func\u021bie\/func\u021bional<\/em>, specific matematicii \u0219i \u0219tiin\u021belor na\u00adtu\u00adrii, posed\u0103 \u0219i el aceea\u0219i universalitate concret\u0103, spre deosebire de conceptul-sub\u00adstan\u021b\u0103\/substan\u021bial<\/em>, al universalit\u0103\u021bii abstracte. Chestiunea e discutat\u0103 am\u0103\u00adnun\u00ad\u021bit \u00een car\u00ad\u00adtea sa din 1910, Con\u00adcep\u00adtul substan\u021bial \u0219i conceptul func\u00ad\u021bional<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u00cenaintea lui Bosanquet, Bradley sau Cassirer, trebuie amintit Lotze, care spune:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Despre adev\u0103ratul universal, [\u2026] care con\u021bine regula pentru \u00eentreaga formare a speciilor sale, se poate spune mai degrab\u0103 c\u0103 con\u021binutul s\u0103u este \u00eentotdeauna exact la fel de bogat, suma notelor sale exact la fel de mare ca cea a speciilor sale; numai c\u0103 conceptul universal, genul, con\u021bine un num\u0103r de note \u00eentr-o form\u0103 pur nedeterminat\u0103 \u0219i chiar universal\u0103; acestora le co\u00adres\u00adpund \u00een specii valori definite sau caracteristici particulare \u0219i, \u00een cele din urm\u0103, \u00een con\u00adcep\u00adtul singular, toat\u0103 nedeterminarea dispare, iar fiecare not\u0103 universal\u0103 a genului este \u00eenlo\u00adcuit\u0103 cu una pe deplin determinat\u0103 \u00een cantitate, individualitate \u0219i rela\u021bie cu celelalte.[33]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Poate c\u0103 ideea ar merita chiar s\u0103-i fie dedicat\u0103 o istorie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
4. Chestiunea priorit\u0103\u021bii<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Petre Andrei, \u021bin\u00e2nd cont c\u0103 studiul despre Comte al lui Petrovici a ap\u0103rut \u00een 1914, iar tratatul lui Goblot \u00een 1918, spune:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

D. Petrovici a publicat studiul s\u0103u \u00eenaintea lui Goblot; nu ne g\u00e2ndim, desigur, la posibilitatea vreunei influen\u021be, c\u0103ci Goblot nu a avut cuno\u0219tin\u021b\u0103 de studiul dlui Petrovici. Este \u00eens\u0103 o pl\u0103\u00adcu\u00adt\u0103 \u00eent\u00e2lnire \u00een cugetare, a\u0219a cum a fost la Xenopol \u0219i Rickert \u0219i cum vor mai fi fiind \u0219i altele.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Am remarcat aceast\u0103 \u00eent\u00e2lnire, c\u0103ci \u0219i la noi se pot scrie multe lucruri bune, dar faptul c\u0103 limba noastr\u0103 nu e cunoscut\u0103 \u00een str\u0103in\u0103tate contribuie s\u0103 lase \u00een umbr\u0103 idei care, scrise \u00eentr-o limb\u0103 apusean\u0103, nu trec neobservate.[34]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Ce nu \u0219tia Petre Andrei c\u00e2nd scria aceste r\u00e2nduri (\u0219i nici comentatorii \u0219i istoricii ulteriori) este c\u0103 Edmond Goblot publicase acelea\u0219i idei, \u00eentr-o form\u0103 aproape identic\u0103, \u00eentr-un studiu ap\u0103rut \u00een 1912 \u00een revista italian\u0103 Scientia<\/em>[35]<\/sup><\/a>, intitulat \u201eLe concept et l\u2019id\u00e9e\u201d[36]<\/sup><\/a>. A\u0219adar, ordinea public\u0103rii acestei idei nu este: Petrovici mai \u00eent\u00e2i \u0219i apoi Goblot, ci Goblot (1912), apoi Petrovici (1914), \u0219i din nou Goblot (1918).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
***<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Consecin\u021bele acestor neajunsuri, pe care sper c\u0103 acest articol le-a documentat sa\u00adtis\u00adf\u0103c\u0103tor, ale micii recenzii a lui Petre Andrei pentru istoriografia filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u0219ti[37]<\/sup><\/a> au fost destul de serioase.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Referin\u021be bibliografice<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Andrei, P., \u201e<\/a>Edmond Goblot, Trait\u00e9 de logique<\/em>, ed. II, Paris 1920; I. Petrovici, Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em>\u201d, Via\u021ba ro\u00adm\u00e2\u00ad\u00adneasc\u0103<\/em>, anul XII, nr. 10, 1920, pp. 642\u2013643.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bagdasar, N., \u201eIon Petrovici\u201d, \u00een N. Bagdasar, Traian Herseni, S. S. B\u00e2rs\u0103nescu (ed.), Istoria filosofiei mo\u00adder\u00adne<\/em>, vol. V: Filosofia rom\u00e2neasc\u0103 dela origini p\u00e2n\u0103 ast\u0103zi<\/em>, Bucure\u0219ti, Societatea Rom\u00e2n\u0103 de Filo\u00adsofie, 1941, pp. 123\u2013145.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B\u0103d\u0103r\u0103u, Dan, \u201eIon Petrovici, Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em> (edi\u021bia II-a), Editura Casei \u0218coalelor\u201d, Via\u021ba rom\u00e2neasc\u0103<\/em>, anul XVI, nr. 2, 1925, pp. 312\u2013314.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

B\u0103d\u0103r\u0103u, Dan, \u201eVirtualit\u0103\u021bile no\u021biunilor\u201d (\u00een dou\u0103 p\u0103r\u021bi) [1927], \u00een Scrieri alese<\/em>, vol. III, editor Vasile Pa\u00advel\u00adcu, Bucure\u0219ti, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Rom\u00e2nia, 1986, pp. 37\u201352; 53\u201360.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Boche\u0144ski, I. M., A History of Formal Logic<\/em>, traducere \u0219i editare de Ivo Thomas, Notre Dame (IN), Univer\u00adsity of Notre Dame Press, 1961.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bruc\u0103r, I., \u201eD. I. Petrovici \u0219i logica\u201d, Revista de filosofie<\/em>, vol. XXIII, nr. 1, 1938, pp. 13\u201340.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bumbe\u0219ti, Gheorghe, \u201eEd. Goblot \u0219i I. Petrovici cu privire la teoria no\u021biunilor\u201d, Preocup\u0103ri lite\u00adrare<\/em>, anul VII, nr. 6\u20137, 1942, pp. 399\u2013402.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dumitriu, Anton, Istoria logicii<\/em>, ed. a II-a rev\u0103zut\u0103 \u0219i ad\u0103ugit\u0103, Bucure\u0219ti, Editura didactic\u0103 \u0219i pedagogic\u0103, 1975 [1969].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Findlay, J. N., Hegel. A Re-examination<\/em>, Londra, George Allen & Unwin, 1958.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goblot, Edmond, \u201eLe concept et l\u2019id\u00e9e\u201d, Scientia (Rivista di scienza)<\/em>, vol. XI, anul VI, nr. 1 (XXI), 1912, pp. 101\u2013114.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Goblot, Edmond, Trait\u00e9 de logique<\/em>, pr\u00e9face d\u2019\u00c9mile Boutroux, Paris, Librairie Armand Colin, 1918.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lotze, Hermann, Logic: In Three Books of Thought, of Investigation and of Knowledge<\/em>, traducere \u0219i editare de Bernard Bosanquet, ed. a II-a, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1888 [1874, prima edi\u021bie englez\u0103 \u00een 1884].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Maritain, Jacques, \u00c9l\u00e9ments de philosophie. II. L\u2019Ordre des concepts. I. \u2013 Petite logique (Logique formelle)<\/em>, Paris, Librairie Pierre T\u00e9qui, 1951 [1923].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mesaro\u0219iu, Ion V., \u201eRa\u021bionalismul \u0219i problemele logicii \u00een concep\u021bia lui Ion Petrovici\u201d, Studia Universi\u00adtatis Babe\u0219-Bolyai<\/em>, Series Philo\u00adso\u00adphia, 1969, pp. 79\u201391.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Peirce, C. S., \u201eUpon logical comprehension and extension\u201d, Proceedings of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences<\/em>, vol. 7 (mai 1865\u2013mai 1868), pp. 416\u2013432.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petrovici, I., \u201eLogica \u0219i August[e]<\/a> Comte. Contribu\u021biuni la critica clasific\u0103rii \u0219tiin\u021belor\u201d, Convorbiri lite\u00adrare<\/em>, anul XLVIII, nr. 7\u20138, 9, 10, 11, 1914.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petrovici, Ioan, Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em>, ed. a II-a, Bucure\u0219ti, Tipografia \u201eJockey-Club\u201d Ion C. V\u0103c\u0103\u00adrescu (din publica\u021biunile Casei \u0218coalelor, Biblioteca Pedagogic\u0103 no. 27), 1924 [1910].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petrovici, Ioan, Probleme de logic\u0103<\/em>, ed. a III-a, Bucure\u0219ti, Editura Casei \u0218coalelor, 1928 [1911, 1923].<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petrovici, Ioan, De-asupra sbuciumului<\/em>, Bucure\u0219ti, Editura Casei \u0218coalelor, 1932.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Petrovici, Ion, Curs de logic\u0103<\/em>, edi\u021bie \u00eengrijit\u0103, prefa\u021bat\u0103 \u0219i adnotat\u0103 de Constantin S\u0103l\u0103v\u0103stru, Ia\u0219i, Institutul European, 2000.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Veti\u0219anu, Vasile, \u201eIon Petrovici\u201d, \u00een Dumitru Ghi\u0219e, Nicolae Gogonea\u021b\u0103 (coord.), Istoria filozofiei rom\u00e2\u00adne\u0219ti<\/em>, vol. II (1900\u20131944, partea I), Bucure\u0219ti, Editura Academiei Republicii Socialiste Rom\u00e2nia, 1980, pp. 565\u2013600.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n
Note<\/strong><\/h5>\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/a> I. Petrovici, Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em>, ed. a II-a, p. 3.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/a> Consider c\u0103 \u00eendeosebi capitolele II (\u201eCe sunt \u0219i cum se alc\u0103tuiesc no\u021biunile\u201d) \u0219i III (\u201eFiin\u021ba psiho\u00adlo\u00adgic\u0103 a no\u021biunilor\u201d) abund\u0103 \u00een asemenea teme.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/a> Trait\u00e9 de logique<\/em>, ap\u0103rut \u00een 1918, cu numeroase edi\u021bii ulterioare (\u00een 1952 era la a noua edi\u021bie); a de\u00adve\u00adnit rapid \u0219i a r\u0103mas zeci de ani o lucrare de referin\u021b\u0103 pentru \u00eenv\u0103\u021b\u0103m\u00e2ntul logic din universit\u0103\u021bile franceze.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/a> Cred c\u0103 trebuie men\u021bionat explicit aici c\u0103 nici Petre Andrei, nici altcineva n-a afirmat vreodat\u0103 exis\u00adten\u021ba unei influen\u021be; s-a vorbit exclusiv, dar \u00een mod r\u0103spicat, despre o prioritate temporal\u0103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/a> Titlul este: \u201eEdmond Goblot, Trait\u00e9 de logique<\/em>, ed. II, Paris 1920; I. Petrovici, Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/a> Petre Andrei aminte\u0219te \u0219i de cursul de logic\u0103 \u021binut de Petrovici la Universitatea din Ia\u0219i: \u201e\u00eenc\u0103 de acum 10 ani d-sa sus\u021binea, la cursul de logic\u0103, c\u0103 sfera \u0219i con\u021binutul unei no\u021biuni pot cre\u0219te sau sc\u0103dea am\u00e2n\u00addou\u0103\u201d (\u201eEdmond Goblot, Trait\u00e9 de logique<\/em>; I. Petrovici, Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em>\u201d, p. 643).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/a> Dintre cei mai vechi, vezi, de pild\u0103: Nicolae Bagdasar, capitolul s\u0103u \u201eIon Petrovici\u201d din Istoria fi\u00adlo\u00adsofiei mo\u00adder\u00adne<\/em>, vol. V, p. 125; Ion V. Mesaro\u0219iu, \u201eRa\u021bionalismul \u0219i problemele logicii\u201d, p. 87; Anton Du\u00admi\u00adtriu, Istoria logicii<\/em>, pp. 1084, 1087; Vasile Veti\u0219anu (care nu face \u00eens\u0103 dec\u00e2t s\u0103 citeze aprecierile lui An\u00adton Dumitriu \u00een aceast\u0103 chestiune), capitolul s\u0103u \u201eIon Petrovici\u201d din Istoria <\/em>filozofiei<\/em> <\/em>rom\u00e2\u00adne\u0219ti<\/em>, vol. II, pp. 576\u2013577. Gheorghe Bumbe\u0219ti, \u00een \u201eEd. Goblot \u0219i I. Petrovici cu privire la teoria no\u021biunilor\u201d, ap\u0103rut \u00eentr\u2011un num\u0103r al revistei Preocup\u0103ri literare<\/em> dedicat lui Petrovici (\u201eLa 60 de ani ai Profesorului I. Petro\u00advici\u201d), g\u0103\u00adse\u0219\u00adte asem\u0103n\u0103ri \u00eentre concep\u021biile expuse \u00een Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em> \u0219i \u00een Trait\u00e9 de logique<\/em>, vorbe\u0219te lim\u00adpe\u00adde despre \u00eent\u00e2ietatea lui Petrovici \u0219i depl\u00e2nge \u201eas\u00adpec\u00adtul mi\u00adnor al culturii rom\u00e2ne\u0219ti, care, de\u0219i a fost une\u00adori bo\u00adga\u00adt\u0103 \u00een idei c\u00e2\u0219tigate prin efort propriu, nu le-a putut adu\u00adce la cuno\u0219tin\u021ba celorlalte popoare din pricina cir\u00ad\u00adcu\u00adla\u021biei sale reduse\u201d, dar are \u00een vedere alte proble\u00adme (pe care le trateaz\u0103 vag \u0219i sumar) privitoare la no\u00ad\u021bi\u00aduni. (\u00cei mul\u021bumesc aici lui Titus Lates, care mi-a atras aten\u00ad\u021bia asupra existen\u021bei articolului lui Bumbe\u0219ti.) Iosif Bru\u00adc\u0103r \u00een schimb, \u00een \u201eD. I. Petrovici \u0219i logica\u201d (p. 20), vorbind despre o \u201eanticipare oa\u00adre\u00adcum\u201d a con\u00adclu\u00ad\u00adziilor lui Go\u00adblot, identific\u0103 \u00een mod co\u00adrect studiul lui Pe\u00adtro\u00advici despre Comte ca fiind lo\u00adcul \u00een care apare ea, dar o pune \u00een leg\u0103tur\u0103 cu proble\u00adma\u00adtica no\u021biunilor individuale, leg\u0103tur\u0103 pe care o vede \u0219i Bag\u00adda\u00adsar, \u00een lo\u00adcul ci\u00adtat. Nici Bagdasar, nici Bruc\u0103r nu explic\u0103 \u00eens\u0103 \u00een ce ar consta aceast\u0103 leg\u0103tur\u0103.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/a> Petrovici \u00eensu\u0219i, dup\u0103 ce ia cuno\u0219tin\u021b\u0103 de cele afirmate de Petre Andrei \u00een recenzia sa, aminte\u0219te (cu ele\u00adgant\u0103 discre\u021bie, trebuie spus) \u00een prefa\u021ba edi\u021biei a II-a, din 1924, a Teoriei no\u021biunilor<\/em> de anterioritatea sa \u00een ce pri\u00adve\u0219te anumite idei cuprinse \u00een carte (p. 4); se va mai referi \u0219i ulterior la aceasta \u00een Probleme de logi\u00adc\u0103<\/em>, ed. a II-a (ad\u0103ugit\u0103), din 1923, edi\u021bie \u00een care include \u0219i studiul \u201eLogica \u0219i Auguste Comte\u201d (p. 234, not\u0103) \u0219i \u00een De\u2011asupra sbu\u00adciu\u00admului<\/em> (pp. 54\u201355).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/a> P. Andrei, op. cit.<\/em>, p. 643.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/a> Boche\u0144ski (A <\/em>H<\/em>istory of <\/em>F<\/em>ormal <\/em>L<\/em>ogic<\/em>, pp. 258\u2013259) afirm\u0103 c\u0103 ideea care st\u0103 la baza distinc\u021biei din\u00adtre intensiune \u0219i extensiune este cu mult mai veche, fiind presupus\u0103 \u00eenc\u0103 de Isagoga <\/em>lui Porfir, dar c\u0103 expre\u00adsiile compr\u00e9hension<\/em> \u0219i \u00e9tendue<\/em> apar distinse clar pentru prima oar\u0103 abia \u00een Logica de la Port\u2011Royal<\/em>. \u00cenainte de el, Ch. S. Peirce (\u201eUpon logical comprehension and extension\u201d, p. 417) considera de-a dreptul c\u0103 distinc\u00ad\u021bia celor de la Port-Royal era practic cuprins\u0103 \u00een Isagoga<\/em> lui Porfir \u0219i c\u0103 medievalii n-au igno\u00adrat-o \u0219i nici n\u2011ar fi putut-o ignora, dat fiind c\u0103 Isagoga <\/em>era la fel de asiduu studiat\u0103 ca \u0219i Biblia.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/a> Au fost propuse \u0219i alte denumiri, care nu s-au bucurat \u00eens\u0103 de prea mare succes: cantitate extern\u0103<\/em> \u0219i cantitate intern\u0103<\/em>, breadth<\/em> \u0219i depth<\/em>, scope<\/em> \u0219i force<\/em> (vezi Peirce, op. cit.<\/em>, pp. 418\u2013420).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/a> Peirce o nume\u0219te \u201elegea lui Kant\u201d (op. cit.<\/em>, pp. 424\u2013425).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/a> P. Andrei, op. cit.<\/em>, p. 642 (subl. \u00een orig.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 643 (subl. \u00een orig.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/a> Petrovici, \u201eLogica \u0219i August[e] Comte\u201d (II), p. 899.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/a> Ibidem<\/em>, p. 898.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/a> Vezi Constantin S\u0103l\u0103v\u0103stru, \u201eNot\u0103 asupra edi\u021biei\u201d, \u00een Ion Petrovici, Curs de logic\u0103<\/em>, p. 43.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/a> Petrovici, Curs de logic\u0103<\/em>, p. 84.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/a> A\u0219a face de pild\u0103 Bruc\u0103r, \u00een studiul s\u0103u \u201eD. I. Petrovici \u0219i logica\u201d (pp. 19\u201320 \u0219i nota 1 de la p. 20), dar \u0219i Anton Du\u00admi\u00adtriu, \u00een Istoria logicii<\/em>, p. 1084.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/a> Petrovici, \u201eLogica \u0219i August[e] Comte\u201d (II), p. 898.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/a> Goblot, Trait\u00e9 de logique<\/em>, p. 104 (trad. mea).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/a> John Neville Keynes (1852\u20131949), economist \u0219i logician englez, tat\u0103l mult mai cunoscutului John Maynard Keynes. Este autorul c\u0103r\u021bii Studies and Exercises in Formal Logic<\/em> (1884), de unde preia Goblot dis\u00adtinc\u00ad\u021bia \u00een discu\u021bie.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/a> Aceasta este modificarea de sens de care vorbeam mai sus \u0219i care pare s\u0103-i fi sc\u0103pat lui Petre Andrei.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/a> Goblot, op. cit.<\/em>, p. 110 (trad. mea, subl. \u00een orig.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/a> Jacques Maritain, \u00c9l\u00e9ments de philosophie. II. L\u2019Ordre des concepts. I. \u2013 Petite logique (Logique formelle)<\/em>, p. 37.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[26]<\/a> Goblot, op. cit.<\/em>, p. 115 (trad. mea, subl. \u00een orig.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[27]<\/a> Ibidem<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[28]<\/a> \u201eDl Goblot, excesiv de nominalist \u00een no\u021biunea sa de \u00abconcept\u00bb, este excesiv de realist \u00een no\u021biunea sa de \u00abIdee\u00bb, f\u0103r\u0103 \u00eendoial\u0103 pentru c\u0103 nu a \u0219tiut s\u0103 g\u0103seasc\u0103 un just echilibru Logicii sale printr-o teorie s\u0103n\u0103\u00adtoa\u00ads\u0103 a abstrac\u021biei \u0219i a universalului\u201d (Maritain, op. cit.<\/em>, p. 38).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[29]<\/a> Aceasta deoarece prin \u0219tiin\u021b\u0103 a naturii<\/em> nu trebuie s\u0103 se \u00een\u021beleag\u0103 \u0219tiin\u021b\u0103 a lucrurilor<\/em>, ci \u0219tiin\u021b\u0103 a naturii lucrurilor<\/em>, iar natura lucrurilor este totuna cu ideile lor (Goblot, op. cit.<\/em>, p. 115).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[30]<\/a> C\u0103ci lucrurile devin, sunt temporale, \u00een timp ce ideea este legea care \u00eenchide \u00een ea \u00eentreg trecutul \u0219i viitorul (ibidem<\/em>, pp. 115\u2013116).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[31]<\/a> Ideile ar trebui concepute ca idealuri, \u0219i \u021bine de esen\u021ba idealurilor a nu fi \u0219i a nu putea fi reale (ibi\u00addem<\/em>, p. 116).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[32]<\/a> J. N. Findlay, Hegel. A re-examination<\/em>, p. 226 (trad. mea, subl. \u00een orig.).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[33]<\/a> Hermann Lotze, Logic<\/em> (vol. I), p. 52 (trad. mea din englez\u0103).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[34]<\/a> P. Andrei, op. cit.<\/em>, p. 643.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[35]<\/a> Arhiva revistei (care a ap\u0103rut continuu \u00een perioada 1907\u20131988 \u0219i a fost foarte cunoscut\u0103 la vremea ei) poate fi consultat\u0103 online (https:\/\/amshistorica.unibo.it\/scientia), fiind \u00eentre\u021binut\u0103 de Universitatea din Bo\u00adlogna.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[36]<\/a> Titlul capitolului din Trait\u00e9 de logique<\/em> este \u201eExtension et compr\u00e9hension; le concept et l\u2019Id\u00e9e\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[37]<\/a> Se cuvine amintit \u00een acest context (fie \u0219i doar \u00een ultima not\u0103) Dan B\u0103d\u0103r\u0103u. Este singurul (dintre au\u00adto\u00adrii consulta\u021bi de mine) care, vorbind pe aceea\u0219i pagin\u0103 despre Petrovici \u0219i Goblot, nu aminte\u0219te despre o prio\u00adri\u00adta\u00adte a celui dint\u00e2i fa\u021b\u0103 de cel de-al doilea \u0219i nici nu afirm\u0103 asem\u0103narea dintre concep\u021biile lor cu privire la legea va\u00adria\u021biei inverse. Studiul s\u0103u \u201eVirtualit\u0103\u021bile no\u021biunilor\u201d (ap\u0103rut \u00een 1927) se deschide chiar cu prezen\u00adta\u00adrea deta\u00adliat\u0103 a ideilor lui Keynes \u0219i Goblot asupra conota\u021biei \u0219i comprehensiunii, iar \u00een cursul expunerii Pe\u00adtro\u00advici este men\u021bionat aprobator \u00een mod repetat, f\u0103r\u0103 a fi \u00eens\u0103 comparat cu Goblot. Cu doi ani \u00eenainte, \u00een 1925, B\u0103d\u0103r\u0103u scrisese chiar o recenzie (foarte pozitiv\u0103) la Teoria no\u021biunilor<\/em>. Aici nu este pomenit deloc numele lui Goblot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

[Studii de istorie a filosofiei rom\u00e2ne\u015fti<\/em>, vol. XVIII: \u0218tiin\u021b\u0103 \u0219i metafizic\u0103. Ion Petrovici<\/em>, Bucure\u015fti, Editura Academiei Rom\u00e2ne, 2022, pp. 101\u2013110]<\/p>\n\n\n

\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t<\/path><\/svg>\n\t\t\t<\/span>Descarc\u0103<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sfera \u0219i con\u021binutul no\u021biunilor la Ion Petrovici \u0219i Edmond Goblot: o inadverten\u021b\u0103 istoriografic\u0103 Ovidiu G. Grama Institutul de Filosofie \u0219i Psihologie \u201eC. R\u0103dulescu-Motru\u201d al Academiei Rom\u00e2ne Extension and Intension of Concepts in Ion Petrovici and Edmond Goblot:An Inadvertence of Historians Abstract: The paper tries to identify the imperfections of a small book review from 1920, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":6423,"menu_order":8,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"disabled","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"categories":[195,384,366],"tags":[386,130,390,388],"class_list":["post-6753","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry","category-articole","category-ovidiu-g-grama","category-sifr18","tag-edmond-goblot","tag-ion-petrovici","tag-logica","tag-petre-andrei"],"featured_image_src":null,"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":false,"thumbnail":false,"medium":false,"medium_large":false,"large":false,"1536x1536":false,"2048x2048":false},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"SIFR","author_link":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/author\/mm\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Sfera \u0219i con\u021binutul no\u021biunilor la Ion Petrovici \u0219i Edmond Goblot: o inadverten\u021b\u0103 istoriografic\u0103 Ovidiu G. Grama Institutul de Filosofie \u0219i Psihologie \u201eC. R\u0103dulescu-Motru\u201d al Academiei Rom\u00e2ne Extension and Intension of Concepts in Ion Petrovici and Edmond Goblot:An Inadvertence of Historians Abstract: The paper tries to identify the imperfections of a small book review from 1920,…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6753","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=6753"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6753\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7062,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6753\/revisions\/7062"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/6423"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=6753"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=6753"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/filosofieromaneasca.institutuldefilosofie.ro\/sifr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=6753"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}