What is it about?

Is the birth of analytical philosophy the revolt against a wrong interpretation of idealism?

Featured Image

Why is it important?

This paper takes into account Bertrand Russell’s, Francis H. Bradley’s,and Immanuel Kant’s arguments about “what is the real Julius Caesar” to examine(i) Russell’s characterization of analytic philosophy as a “new philosophy”, bornas a revolt against idealism, and (ii) the actual relationship between Bradleyand Kant. In order to understand who Russell was actually revolting against, weanalyse the features of Bradley’s idealism and investigate how he understood andinterpreted Kant’s transcendental revolution. By using the notion of Julius Caesaras a cogent comparative case study, we show that Bradley’s reading of Kant wasnot well-grounded. Therefore, we argue that Bradley’s interpretation of Hegel’sidealism was also unconventional. This misunderstanding in turn shaped andcharacterised Russell’s revolt against idealism. As a result, we show that analyticand continental philosophy began to part ways with the birth of what Russellcalls new philosophy much earlier than their encounter at Davos. The reasons forthis parting can be found in British idealists’ erroneous interpretation of Kant’stranscendental philosophy.

Perspectives

Writing this article was a great pleasure as it has a co-author with whom I have had long standing collaborations. This article lead to rediscussing the birth of analytical philosophy and to a broad reading of the history of idealism.

Michele Cardani

Read the Original

This page is a summary of: Die Frage nach dem wirklichen Julius Cäsar – und warum sie immer noch aktuell ist, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie, September 2019, De Gruyter,
DOI: 10.1515/dzph-2019-0031.
You can read the full text:

Read

Resources

Contributors

The following have contributed to this page