How social ontology is possible from the point of view of epistemology and philosophy of language?

Q3 Arts and Humanities
A. Antonovskiy, R. Barash
{"title":"How social ontology is possible from the point of view of epistemology and philosophy of language?","authors":"A. Antonovskiy, R. Barash","doi":"10.22363/2313-2302-2022-26-3-607-622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article critically examines the project of Brian Epstein's social ontology. The authors propose to interpret a social fact as derived from the appropriate perspective of an observer carrying out a structural reconstruction of a social phenomenon and identify difficulties in the way of analyzing social facts as structurally independent of causally determining factors. The article shows that the determination and foundation of social facts cannot be understood as asymmetric, substantiates the symmetrical nature of the relationship between the determinable complex fact and the ontological foundations that determine them, and suggests that the judgments describing them are equivalent, and also proves the need to involve philosophical and scientific methodology, the resources of the philosophy of language and epistemology to address the issue of the validity of projects “ontological fixation”, which the authors of the article propose to consider as a scientific classification. Understanding the ontology of the social is possible only when going beyond its limits, and any classifications can be idiosyncrasies of individual classifiers or observers, scientifically unequal and requiring epistemological evaluation. The authors note that epistemology allows us to judge the necessity or, on the contrary, artificiality of classification, and the question of the ontological basis of a social fact should be solved by analogy. Accordingly, the search for such ontological foundations is not possible without prior resolution of the epistemological problem: which classifications (fixations) of “natural” or “social species” are structurally necessary (in the sense that their macro-properties properties stem from the internal structure), and which are arbitrarily constructed by the observer, based on his idiosyncrasy or local-historical, cultural or ideological position.","PeriodicalId":32651,"journal":{"name":"RUDN Journal of Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RUDN Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2302-2022-26-3-607-622","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article critically examines the project of Brian Epstein's social ontology. The authors propose to interpret a social fact as derived from the appropriate perspective of an observer carrying out a structural reconstruction of a social phenomenon and identify difficulties in the way of analyzing social facts as structurally independent of causally determining factors. The article shows that the determination and foundation of social facts cannot be understood as asymmetric, substantiates the symmetrical nature of the relationship between the determinable complex fact and the ontological foundations that determine them, and suggests that the judgments describing them are equivalent, and also proves the need to involve philosophical and scientific methodology, the resources of the philosophy of language and epistemology to address the issue of the validity of projects “ontological fixation”, which the authors of the article propose to consider as a scientific classification. Understanding the ontology of the social is possible only when going beyond its limits, and any classifications can be idiosyncrasies of individual classifiers or observers, scientifically unequal and requiring epistemological evaluation. The authors note that epistemology allows us to judge the necessity or, on the contrary, artificiality of classification, and the question of the ontological basis of a social fact should be solved by analogy. Accordingly, the search for such ontological foundations is not possible without prior resolution of the epistemological problem: which classifications (fixations) of “natural” or “social species” are structurally necessary (in the sense that their macro-properties properties stem from the internal structure), and which are arbitrarily constructed by the observer, based on his idiosyncrasy or local-historical, cultural or ideological position.
从认识论和语言哲学的角度看,社会本体论是如何可能的?
本文批判性地考察了爱泼斯坦的社会本体论。作者建议从对社会现象进行结构重构的观察者的适当视角来解释社会事实,并指出分析社会事实在结构上独立于因果决定因素的困难。本文论证了社会事实的确定和基础不能被理解为不对称的,论证了可确定的复杂事实与决定它们的本体论基础之间的关系的对称性,提出了描述它们的判断是等价的,也证明了需要涉及哲学和科学方法论。语言哲学和认识论的资源来解决项目有效性的“本体论固定”问题,本文的作者建议将其作为一种科学的分类来考虑。理解社会的本体论只有在超越其限制时才有可能,任何分类都可能是个体分类者或观察者的特质,在科学上是不平等的,需要认识论的评估。作者指出,认识论允许我们判断分类的必要性,或者相反,判断分类的人为性,而社会事实的本体论基础问题应该通过类比来解决。因此,如果不事先解决认识论问题,寻找这样的本体论基础是不可能的:“自然”或“社会物种”的哪些分类(固定)在结构上是必要的(在这种意义上,它们的宏观特性源于内部结构),哪些是由观察者根据他的特质或当地历史、文化或意识形态立场任意构建的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
RUDN Journal of Philosophy
RUDN Journal of Philosophy Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信