Is philosophy progressive?
Identifieur interne : 001B65 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 001B64; suivant : 001B66Is philosophy progressive?
Auteurs : John WoodsSource :
- Argumentation [ 0920-427X ] ; 1988-05-01.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Teeft :
- Agonic, Albert hofstadter, Anthony quinton, Aporetic, Aporetic character, Aporetic cluster, Aporetic clusters, Aporetic clusters account, Best opinion, Causal determination, Cognitive normativeness, Evidentiary problem, Fluid mechanics, Foundational problem, Free acts, George grant, Humanities, John woods, Legitimate subjectivity, Mathematical sciences, Methodological efficiencies, Modern quantification theory, Musical advances, Nicholas rescher, Nobel dreams, Ontological argument, Original text, Original texts, Original work, Philosophical argument, Philosophical argumentation, Philosophical efforts, Philosophical practice, Philosophy andargument, Poetical, Poetical continuities, Present purposes, Rescher, Scientific research, Semantic solipsism, Semantical solipsism, Solipsism, Spacious possibilities, Subjectivity, Tatsachen bestimmt, Technical virtuosity, University curriculum, Vitiating error.
Abstract
Abstract: Any adequate attempt to discuss progressivity in philosophy should provide some explanation of why philosophy persistently honours “the old and the false” and deals with original texts in a way in which science does not. An attempt is made to answer this question by appealing to: (1) the aporetic character of philosophy; (2) the semantical solipsism of philosophy; (3) the subjectivity of philosophy, and; (4) poetical continuities in philosophy.
Url:
DOI: 10.1007/BF00178019
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4CLe document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title xml:lang="en">Is philosophy progressive?</title><author><name sortKey="Woods, John" sort="Woods, John" uniqKey="Woods J" first="John" last="Woods">John Woods</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, TKK 3M4, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C</idno><date when="1988" year="1988">1988</date><idno type="doi">10.1007/BF00178019</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">001B65</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">001B65</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Is philosophy progressive?</title><author><name sortKey="Woods, John" sort="Woods, John" uniqKey="Woods J" first="John" last="Woods">John Woods</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Department of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, TKK 3M4, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Argumentation</title><title level="j" type="sub">An International Journal on Reasoning</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Argumentation</title><idno type="ISSN">0920-427X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1572-8374</idno><imprint><publisher>Kluwer Academic Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Dordrecht</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1988-05-01">1988-05-01</date><biblScope unit="volume">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="157">157</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="174">174</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0920-427X</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0920-427X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>aporetic cluster</term><term>cost-benefit analysis</term><term>poetry</term><term>progressivity</term><term>semantical solipsism</term><term>subjectivity</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Agonic</term><term>Albert hofstadter</term><term>Anthony quinton</term><term>Aporetic</term><term>Aporetic character</term><term>Aporetic cluster</term><term>Aporetic clusters</term><term>Aporetic clusters account</term><term>Best opinion</term><term>Causal determination</term><term>Cognitive normativeness</term><term>Evidentiary problem</term><term>Fluid mechanics</term><term>Foundational problem</term><term>Free acts</term><term>George grant</term><term>Humanities</term><term>John woods</term><term>Legitimate subjectivity</term><term>Mathematical sciences</term><term>Methodological efficiencies</term><term>Modern quantification theory</term><term>Musical advances</term><term>Nicholas rescher</term><term>Nobel dreams</term><term>Ontological argument</term><term>Original text</term><term>Original texts</term><term>Original work</term><term>Philosophical argument</term><term>Philosophical argumentation</term><term>Philosophical efforts</term><term>Philosophical practice</term><term>Philosophy andargument</term><term>Poetical</term><term>Poetical continuities</term><term>Present purposes</term><term>Rescher</term><term>Scientific research</term><term>Semantic solipsism</term><term>Semantical solipsism</term><term>Solipsism</term><term>Spacious possibilities</term><term>Subjectivity</term><term>Tatsachen bestimmt</term><term>Technical virtuosity</term><term>University curriculum</term><term>Vitiating error</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract" xml:lang="en">Abstract: Any adequate attempt to discuss progressivity in philosophy should provide some explanation of why philosophy persistently honours “the old and the false” and deals with original texts in a way in which science does not. An attempt is made to answer this question by appealing to: (1) the aporetic character of philosophy; (2) the semantical solipsism of philosophy; (3) the subjectivity of philosophy, and; (4) poetical continuities in philosophy.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>springer-journals</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>aporetic</json:string><json:string>john woods</json:string><json:string>poetical</json:string><json:string>subjectivity</json:string><json:string>rescher</json:string><json:string>agonic</json:string><json:string>aporetic clusters</json:string><json:string>humanities</json:string><json:string>solipsism</json:string><json:string>semantical solipsism</json:string><json:string>aporetic character</json:string><json:string>poetical continuities</json:string><json:string>aporetic cluster</json:string><json:string>nicholas rescher</json:string><json:string>original texts</json:string><json:string>semantic solipsism</json:string><json:string>original text</json:string><json:string>ontological argument</json:string><json:string>philosophical argument</json:string><json:string>musical advances</json:string><json:string>legitimate subjectivity</json:string><json:string>philosophy andargument</json:string><json:string>evidentiary problem</json:string><json:string>foundational problem</json:string><json:string>philosophical efforts</json:string><json:string>causal determination</json:string><json:string>aporetic clusters account</json:string><json:string>philosophical practice</json:string><json:string>present purposes</json:string><json:string>methodological efficiencies</json:string><json:string>philosophical argumentation</json:string><json:string>university curriculum</json:string><json:string>original work</json:string><json:string>modern quantification theory</json:string><json:string>cognitive normativeness</json:string><json:string>best opinion</json:string><json:string>spacious possibilities</json:string><json:string>tatsachen bestimmt</json:string><json:string>albert hofstadter</json:string><json:string>anthony quinton</json:string><json:string>vitiating error</json:string><json:string>scientific research</json:string><json:string>technical virtuosity</json:string><json:string>mathematical sciences</json:string><json:string>george grant</json:string><json:string>nobel dreams</json:string><json:string>fluid mechanics</json:string><json:string>free acts</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>John Woods</name><affiliations><json:string>Department of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, TKK 3M4, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>aporetic cluster</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>semantical solipsism</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>subjectivity</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>poetry</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>cost-benefit analysis</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>progressivity</value></json:item></subject><articleId><json:string>BF00178019</json:string><json:string>Art2</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/1BB-GJ1KNN1M-8</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>OriginalPaper</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Abstract: Any adequate attempt to discuss progressivity in philosophy should provide some explanation of why philosophy persistently honours “the old and the false” and deals with original texts in a way in which science does not. An attempt is made to answer this question by appealing to: (1) the aporetic character of philosophy; (2) the semantical solipsism of philosophy; (3) the subjectivity of philosophy, and; (4) poetical continuities in philosophy.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>7.84</score><pdfWordCount>7581</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>43549</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.3</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>18</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>468 x 684 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>70</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>458</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>6</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>Is philosophy progressive?</title><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>Argumentation</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1988</copyrightDate><issn><json:string>0920-427X</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1572-8374</json:string></eissn><journalId><json:string>10503</json:string></journalId><volume>2</volume><issue>2</issue><pages><first>157</first><last>174</last></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>Logic</value></json:item><json:item><value>Communication</value></json:item></subject></host><namedEntities><unitex><date></date><geogName></geogName><orgName></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName></persName><placeName></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/1BB-GJ1KNN1M-8</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string><json:string>2 - linguistics</json:string><json:string>2 - communication</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - arts & humanities</json:string><json:string>2 - philosophy & theology</json:string><json:string>3 - philosophy</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - Linguistics and Language</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Arts and Humanities</json:string><json:string>3 - Philosophy</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string><json:string>2 - linguistique</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>1988</publicationDate><copyrightDate>1988</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1007/BF00178019</json:string></doi><id>31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Is philosophy progressive?</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">Kluwer Academic Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Dordrecht</pubPlace><availability><licence><p>Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988</p></licence><p scheme="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-3XSW68JL-F">springer</p></availability><date>1988</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a" type="main" xml:lang="en">Is philosophy progressive?</title><author xml:id="author-0000"><persName><forename type="first">John</forename><surname>Woods</surname></persName><affiliation>Department of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, TKK 3M4, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/1BB-GJ1KNN1M-8</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1007/BF00178019</idno><idno type="article-id">BF00178019</idno><idno type="article-id">Art2</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Argumentation</title><title level="j" type="sub">An International Journal on Reasoning</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">Argumentation</title><idno type="pISSN">0920-427X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1572-8374</idno><idno type="journal-ID">true</idno><idno type="issue-article-count">10</idno><idno type="volume-issue-count">4</idno><imprint><publisher>Kluwer Academic Publishers</publisher><pubPlace>Dordrecht</pubPlace><date type="published" when="1988-05-01"></date><biblScope unit="volume">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="157">157</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="174">174</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>1988</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract xml:lang="en"><p>Abstract: Any adequate attempt to discuss progressivity in philosophy should provide some explanation of why philosophy persistently honours “the old and the false” and deals with original texts in a way in which science does not. An attempt is made to answer this question by appealing to: (1) the aporetic character of philosophy; (2) the semantical solipsism of philosophy; (3) the subjectivity of philosophy, and; (4) poetical continuities in philosophy.</p></abstract><textClass xml:lang="en"><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>Key words</head><item><term>aporetic cluster</term></item><item><term>semantical solipsism</term></item><item><term>subjectivity</term></item><item><term>poetry</term></item><item><term>cost-benefit analysis</term></item><item><term>progressivity</term></item></list></keywords></textClass><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head>Philosophy</head><item><term>Logic</term></item><item><term>Communication</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="1988-05-01">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-12-1">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus springer-journals not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//Springer-Verlag//DTD A++ V2.4//EN" URI="http://devel.springer.de/A++/V2.4/DTD/A++V2.4.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><Publisher><PublisherInfo><PublisherName>Kluwer Academic Publishers</PublisherName><PublisherLocation>Dordrecht</PublisherLocation></PublisherInfo><Journal><JournalInfo JournalProductType="ArchiveJournal" NumberingStyle="Unnumbered"><JournalID>10503</JournalID><JournalPrintISSN>0920-427X</JournalPrintISSN><JournalElectronicISSN>1572-8374</JournalElectronicISSN><JournalTitle>Argumentation</JournalTitle><JournalSubTitle>An International Journal on Reasoning</JournalSubTitle><JournalAbbreviatedTitle>Argumentation</JournalAbbreviatedTitle><JournalSubjectGroup><JournalSubject Type="Primary">Philosophy</JournalSubject><JournalSubject Type="Secondary">Logic</JournalSubject><JournalSubject Type="Secondary">Communication</JournalSubject></JournalSubjectGroup></JournalInfo><Volume><VolumeInfo VolumeType="Regular" TocLevels="0"><VolumeIDStart>2</VolumeIDStart><VolumeIDEnd>2</VolumeIDEnd><VolumeIssueCount>4</VolumeIssueCount></VolumeInfo><Issue IssueType="Regular"><IssueInfo TocLevels="0"><IssueIDStart>2</IssueIDStart><IssueIDEnd>2</IssueIDEnd><IssueArticleCount>10</IssueArticleCount><IssueHistory><CoverDate><Year>1988</Year><Month>5</Month></CoverDate></IssueHistory><IssueCopyright><CopyrightHolderName>Kluwer Academic Publishers</CopyrightHolderName><CopyrightYear>1988</CopyrightYear></IssueCopyright></IssueInfo><Article ID="Art2"><ArticleInfo Language="En" ArticleType="OriginalPaper" NumberingStyle="Unnumbered" TocLevels="0" ContainsESM="No"><ArticleID>BF00178019</ArticleID><ArticleDOI>10.1007/BF00178019</ArticleDOI><ArticleSequenceNumber>2</ArticleSequenceNumber><ArticleTitle Language="En">Is philosophy progressive?</ArticleTitle><ArticleFirstPage>157</ArticleFirstPage><ArticleLastPage>174</ArticleLastPage><ArticleHistory><RegistrationDate><Year>2004</Year><Month>7</Month><Day>5</Day></RegistrationDate></ArticleHistory><ArticleCopyright><CopyrightHolderName>Kluwer Academic Publishers</CopyrightHolderName><CopyrightYear>1988</CopyrightYear></ArticleCopyright><ArticleGrants Type="Regular"><MetadataGrant Grant="OpenAccess"></MetadataGrant><AbstractGrant Grant="OpenAccess"></AbstractGrant><BodyPDFGrant Grant="Restricted"></BodyPDFGrant><BodyHTMLGrant Grant="Restricted"></BodyHTMLGrant><BibliographyGrant Grant="Restricted"></BibliographyGrant><ESMGrant Grant="Restricted"></ESMGrant></ArticleGrants><ArticleContext><JournalID>10503</JournalID><VolumeIDStart>2</VolumeIDStart><VolumeIDEnd>2</VolumeIDEnd><IssueIDStart>2</IssueIDStart><IssueIDEnd>2</IssueIDEnd><IssueTitle Language="En">Questions about Philosophical Argumentation</IssueTitle></ArticleContext></ArticleInfo><ArticleHeader><AuthorGroup><Author AffiliationIDS="Aff1"><AuthorName DisplayOrder="Western"><GivenName>John</GivenName><FamilyName>Woods</FamilyName></AuthorName></Author><Affiliation ID="Aff1"><OrgDivision>Department of Philosophy</OrgDivision><OrgName>University of Lethbridge</OrgName><OrgAddress><Street>4401 University Drive</Street><Postcode>TKK 3M4</Postcode><City>Lethbridge</City><State>Alberta</State><Country>Canada</Country></OrgAddress></Affiliation></AuthorGroup><Abstract ID="Abs1" Language="En"><Heading>Abstract</Heading><Para>Any adequate attempt to discuss progressivity in philosophy should provide some explanation of why philosophy persistently honours “the old and the false” and deals with original texts in a way in which science does not. An attempt is made to answer this question by appealing to: (1) the aporetic character of philosophy; (2) the semantical solipsism of philosophy; (3) the subjectivity of philosophy, and; (4) poetical continuities in philosophy.</Para></Abstract><KeywordGroup Language="En"><Heading>Key words</Heading><Keyword>aporetic cluster</Keyword><Keyword>semantical solipsism</Keyword><Keyword>subjectivity</Keyword><Keyword>poetry</Keyword><Keyword>cost-benefit analysis</Keyword><Keyword>progressivity</Keyword></KeywordGroup></ArticleHeader><NoBody></NoBody></Article></Issue></Volume></Journal></Publisher></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo lang="en"><title>Is philosophy progressive?</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA" lang="en"><title>Is philosophy progressive?</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">John</namePart><namePart type="family">Woods</namePart><affiliation>Department of Philosophy, University of Lethbridge, 4401 University Drive, TKK 3M4, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="OriginalPaper" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>Kluwer Academic Publishers</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">Dordrecht</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1988-05-01</dateIssued><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1988</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1988</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm></language><abstract lang="en">Abstract: Any adequate attempt to discuss progressivity in philosophy should provide some explanation of why philosophy persistently honours “the old and the false” and deals with original texts in a way in which science does not. An attempt is made to answer this question by appealing to: (1) the aporetic character of philosophy; (2) the semantical solipsism of philosophy; (3) the subjectivity of philosophy, and; (4) poetical continuities in philosophy.</abstract><subject lang="en"><genre>Key words</genre><topic>aporetic cluster</topic><topic>semantical solipsism</topic><topic>subjectivity</topic><topic>poetry</topic><topic>cost-benefit analysis</topic><topic>progressivity</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Argumentation</title><subTitle>An International Journal on Reasoning</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>Argumentation</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" displayLabel="Archive Journal" authority="ISTEX" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><originInfo><publisher>Springer</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">1988-05-01</dateIssued><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">1988</copyrightDate></originInfo><subject><genre>Philosophy</genre><topic>Logic</topic><topic>Communication</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0920-427X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1572-8374</identifier><identifier type="JournalID">10503</identifier><identifier type="IssueArticleCount">10</identifier><identifier type="VolumeIssueCount">4</identifier><part><date>1988</date><detail type="issue"><title>Questions about Philosophical Argumentation</title></detail><detail type="volume"><number>2</number><caption>vol.</caption></detail><detail type="issue"><number>2</number><caption>no.</caption></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>157</start><end>174</end></extent></part><recordInfo><recordOrigin>Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988</recordOrigin></recordInfo></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/1BB-GJ1KNN1M-8</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1007/BF00178019</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">BF00178019</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">Art2</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-3XSW68JL-F">springer</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Musique/explor/DebussyV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 001B65 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 001B65 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Musique
|area= DebussyV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:31F693F3951C1A8143D1DE766E52DA8099DBEF4C
|texte= Is philosophy progressive?
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.33. |  |