Veertig jaar universitaire filosofie in Nederland: van pluralisme naar 'normal philosophy'

Q3 Arts and Humanities
Krisis Pub Date : 2020-12-11 DOI:10.21827/krisis.40.1.36964
K. Vintges
{"title":"Veertig jaar universitaire filosofie in Nederland: van pluralisme naar 'normal philosophy'","authors":"K. Vintges","doi":"10.21827/krisis.40.1.36964","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although for a long time, Dutch academic philosophy was characterized by a pluralism of – imported – philosophical frameworks and paradigms, in more recent decades, a type of ‘normal philosophy’, in the Kuhnian sense, has become dominant which aims to solve ethical and political problems and dilemmas through rational-normative argumentation. Contrary to what is often claimed, the new 'normal philosophy' amounts not to thinking ‘beyond the analytic-continental divide’ in a fruitful synthesis, but to the subsumption of continental philosophical themes and concepts under the analytic tradition. The potentially critical tenor of continental philosophy threatens to be ‘solved’ by this subsumption. ‘Normal philosophy’, with its emphasis on rational-normative argumentation, risks leading to a state philosophy that fits in with existing policy questions, ignoring systemic and structural power inequalities. I argue that the journal Krisis, in keeping with its original principles, should hang on to critical philosophical reflection, which today is needed more than ever, specifically – pace current right-wing and left-wing populist attacks on identity politics – on systemic, multiple forms of deprivation and oppression.","PeriodicalId":38842,"journal":{"name":"Krisis","volume":"14 1","pages":"9-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Krisis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21827/krisis.40.1.36964","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

Although for a long time, Dutch academic philosophy was characterized by a pluralism of – imported – philosophical frameworks and paradigms, in more recent decades, a type of ‘normal philosophy’, in the Kuhnian sense, has become dominant which aims to solve ethical and political problems and dilemmas through rational-normative argumentation. Contrary to what is often claimed, the new 'normal philosophy' amounts not to thinking ‘beyond the analytic-continental divide’ in a fruitful synthesis, but to the subsumption of continental philosophical themes and concepts under the analytic tradition. The potentially critical tenor of continental philosophy threatens to be ‘solved’ by this subsumption. ‘Normal philosophy’, with its emphasis on rational-normative argumentation, risks leading to a state philosophy that fits in with existing policy questions, ignoring systemic and structural power inequalities. I argue that the journal Krisis, in keeping with its original principles, should hang on to critical philosophical reflection, which today is needed more than ever, specifically – pace current right-wing and left-wing populist attacks on identity politics – on systemic, multiple forms of deprivation and oppression.
荷兰大学四十年的哲学:从多元主义到“正常哲学”
虽然在很长一段时间里,荷兰学院派哲学以引进的哲学框架和范式的多元化为特征,但在最近几十年里,一种库恩主义意义上的“正常哲学”已经占据主导地位,其目的是通过理性规范的论证来解决伦理和政治问题和困境。与人们常说的相反,新的“正常哲学”并不是在卓有成效的综合中“超越分析与大陆的分界”,而是把大陆哲学的主题和概念纳入分析传统之下。大陆哲学潜在的批判的基调可能被这种包容所“解决”。“正常哲学”强调理性-规范论证,有可能导致一种国家哲学,它与现有的政策问题相适应,忽视了系统性和结构性的权力不平等。我认为,《Krisis》杂志应该保持其最初的原则,坚持批判性的哲学反思,这在今天比以往任何时候都更需要,特别是——与当前右翼和左翼民粹主义对身份政治的攻击相比——对系统性的、多种形式的剥夺和压迫。
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
Krisis
Krisis Social Sciences-Cultural Studies
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
48 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