TO BE OR NOT TO BE “SUBTLY” PHILOSOPHICALLY COLONIZED*

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Felipe G. A. Moreira
{"title":"TO BE OR NOT TO BE “SUBTLY” PHILOSOPHICALLY COLONIZED*","authors":"Felipe G. A. Moreira","doi":"10.1590/0100-512x2021n15106fgam","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT An often-adopted use of the predicate, “to be colonized”, is one that applies it loosely, not in reference to original Africans or indigenous people enslaved by Europeans or heirs of enslaved persons, but to academics who are citizens of former colonies like Brazil, their ways of thinking, philosophical works, academic communities, etc. But under what conditions one is to do that? And how can one avoid the attribution of such predicate to oneself or one’s works? These issues have not received much attention. While dialoguing with authors associated with decolonial studies, Brazilian, continental and analytic philosophers, this essay aims to contribute to change this situation. It does so by proposing an alternative use of the predicate, “to be ‘subtly’ philosophically colonized”, according to which this predicate is to be applied to philosophical works that have the thirteen features described in the essay or at least most of them. It is argued that this alternative use is to be endorsed because it is: precise; exemplified in a detailed way by at least one philosophical work; and “inexplosive” in not suggesting the “explosive” claim that practically all Western philosophical works are colonized by Western metaphysics.","PeriodicalId":52055,"journal":{"name":"Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kriterion-Revista de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-512x2021n15106fgam","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT An often-adopted use of the predicate, “to be colonized”, is one that applies it loosely, not in reference to original Africans or indigenous people enslaved by Europeans or heirs of enslaved persons, but to academics who are citizens of former colonies like Brazil, their ways of thinking, philosophical works, academic communities, etc. But under what conditions one is to do that? And how can one avoid the attribution of such predicate to oneself or one’s works? These issues have not received much attention. While dialoguing with authors associated with decolonial studies, Brazilian, continental and analytic philosophers, this essay aims to contribute to change this situation. It does so by proposing an alternative use of the predicate, “to be ‘subtly’ philosophically colonized”, according to which this predicate is to be applied to philosophical works that have the thirteen features described in the essay or at least most of them. It is argued that this alternative use is to be endorsed because it is: precise; exemplified in a detailed way by at least one philosophical work; and “inexplosive” in not suggesting the “explosive” claim that practically all Western philosophical works are colonized by Western metaphysics.
被或不被“微妙地”哲学殖民*
谓语“被殖民”(to be colonization)的一个常用用法是指它的应用很松散,不是指被欧洲人奴役的非洲原住民或土著人,而是指作为巴西等前殖民地公民的学者,以及他们的思维方式、哲学著作、学术团体等。但是在什么条件下可以这样做呢?一个人怎样才能避免把这样的谓词归到自己或自己的作品上呢?这些问题并没有受到太多关注。在与与非殖民研究相关的作者,巴西,大陆和分析哲学家进行对话时,本文旨在为改变这种情况做出贡献。它提出了另一种谓语的用法,“被‘巧妙地’哲学地殖民化”,根据这种说法,这个谓语将被应用于具有论文中描述的13个特征或至少其中大部分特征的哲学作品。有人认为,这种替代用法值得赞同,因为它是:精确的;至少一部哲学著作以详细的方式举例说明的;而“不爆炸性”则是指没有提出“爆炸性”的主张,即几乎所有西方哲学著作都被西方形而上学所殖民。
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
28 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信