The paper tries to identify the imperfections of a small book review from 1920, which had a disproportionate impact on subsequent Romanian philosophical historiography. 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 attention 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 intension 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.
微信
科技工作者之家
京公网安备11010202008424号
