The actual word "proposition" doesn't appear as such in the index to the Critique of Pure Reason. I wouldn't be astonished if a word Kant used had been translated as "proposition"; but I also wouldn't be astonished if translator Norman Kemp Smith, working in the 1920s, the zenith of Bertrand Russell's era, deliberately avoided it (as somewhat anachronistic and misleading). It doesn't get grabbed as an official concept-tool until the emergence of modern propositional logic, and algebras of logic, with George Boole, Charles Peirce and others.
This isn't to say that Aristotelian logic doesn't have similarities -- logic being explained via examples and model sentences in propositional form ("therefore socrates is a man" etc) (haha in greek these examplar setennces would be called PARADIGMS) but I suspect that the actual algebraicisation is important to the momentum of the tendency Rorty is criticising.
I would also (intuitively)* suggest that Kant and Hegel would have been suspicious of algebraic logic not as a tool (they both had high regard for mathematics) but as a master-too. That it doesn't develop as a problem for the discussion of philsophy unti lthe emergence of departments of philosophy* defending the boundaries of their specific discipline which also require students to have mastered the relevant logical calculus as a basic technique (very likely before entirely understanding its uses and limits)
*ie from a general sense of the kinds of errors they attacked and understanding they were attempting to inculcate: i have no passages to cite, not least because the notion may never have occurred to either to discuss (will expand on this if needed) **Philosophy as an academic discipline more or less invented by Kant and Hegel, in the sense that they were key to its having departmental offices in the modern university as it emerged in Germany in the late 18th century
no subject
This isn't to say that Aristotelian logic doesn't have similarities -- logic being explained via examples and model sentences in propositional form ("therefore socrates is a man" etc) (haha in greek these examplar setennces would be called PARADIGMS) but I suspect that the actual algebraicisation is important to the momentum of the tendency Rorty is criticising.
I would also (intuitively)* suggest that Kant and Hegel would have been suspicious of algebraic logic not as a tool (they both had high regard for mathematics) but as a master-too. That it doesn't develop as a problem for the discussion of philsophy unti lthe emergence of departments of philosophy* defending the boundaries of their specific discipline which also require students to have mastered the relevant logical calculus as a basic technique (very likely before entirely understanding its uses and limits)
*ie from a general sense of the kinds of errors they attacked and understanding they were attempting to inculcate: i have no passages to cite, not least because the notion may never have occurred to either to discuss (will expand on this if needed)
**Philosophy as an academic discipline more or less invented by Kant and Hegel, in the sense that they were key to its having departmental offices in the modern university as it emerged in Germany in the late 18th century