Abstract

John Stuart Mill's philosophy of logic has been used as the main representative of the psychological doctrine. But in recent years, a growing number of Western philosophy scholars pointed out that Mill's views and positions actually suffered a misreading. In fact, as long as I am more careful study of classic texts Mueller, we can easily find Mill's psychological doctrine of their own to do a strict limit: one hand, he asserted, as an art of logic from as a The logic of science get all of the theoretical basis, but as a general logic of science but on the part of psychology; other hand, he asserted that logic you can get from the psychological theory of structural aspects of revelation. But he did not advocate general logic must seek from the psychological theory of the foundation. John Stuart Mill's philosophy of logic has always been regarded as the main representative of psychologism. In recent years, however, more and more western scholars point out that Mill's points of view and theoretical position have been misunderstood. In fact, once we take a closer examination on some of his classical texts, it's not very difficult for us to find that Mill's psychologism was strictly limited by himself. On the one hand, he asserted that the logic as an art got its theoretical basis from the logic as a science, which , in a very broad sense, was taken as a part of psychology, and on the other hand, he also asserted that logic could receive some enlightenment regarding how to construct a theory from psychology. But he never held such a general view that logic must seek its theoretical foundation from psychology