为什么约瑟夫·马戈利斯从未成为分析艺术哲学家

R. Dreon, F. Ragazzi
{"title":"为什么约瑟夫·马戈利斯从未成为分析艺术哲学家","authors":"R. Dreon, F. Ragazzi","doi":"10.30687/jolma/2723-9640/2022/02/009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper, we support a continuistic reading of Joseph Margolis’ philosophy, defending the claim that in the 1970s, Margolis tackled the issues suggested by the analytic philosophy of art from an original theoretical perspective and through conceptual tools exceeding the analytical framework. Later that perspective turned out to be a radically pragmatist one, in which explicitly tolerant realistic claims and non-reductive naturalism converged with radical historicism and contextualism. We will endorse this thesis by focusing on two important concepts appearing in Margolis’ aesthetics essays from the late 1950s to the 1970s: the type-token pair and the notion of cultural emergence. On the one hand, we will emphasize Margolis’ indebtedness to Peirce’s first formulation of the type-token distinction, involving a strong interdependence between the two elements of the pair, as well as an anti-essentialistic, historicized, and contextualized notion of type. On the other hand, we will delve into Margolis’ exploration of the concept of emergence and cultural emergence, involving a genuinely pluralistic view of ontology, as well as a non-reductive, continuistic form of naturalism. Finally, we will connect the criticism of the so-called closure of the physical world with Margolis’ anti-autonomistic stance in defining artworks","PeriodicalId":360734,"journal":{"name":"3 | 2 | 2022\n Translation as Interpretation","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why Joseph Margolis Has Never Been an Analytic Philosopher of Art\",\"authors\":\"R. Dreon, F. Ragazzi\",\"doi\":\"10.30687/jolma/2723-9640/2022/02/009\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper, we support a continuistic reading of Joseph Margolis’ philosophy, defending the claim that in the 1970s, Margolis tackled the issues suggested by the analytic philosophy of art from an original theoretical perspective and through conceptual tools exceeding the analytical framework. Later that perspective turned out to be a radically pragmatist one, in which explicitly tolerant realistic claims and non-reductive naturalism converged with radical historicism and contextualism. We will endorse this thesis by focusing on two important concepts appearing in Margolis’ aesthetics essays from the late 1950s to the 1970s: the type-token pair and the notion of cultural emergence. On the one hand, we will emphasize Margolis’ indebtedness to Peirce’s first formulation of the type-token distinction, involving a strong interdependence between the two elements of the pair, as well as an anti-essentialistic, historicized, and contextualized notion of type. On the other hand, we will delve into Margolis’ exploration of the concept of emergence and cultural emergence, involving a genuinely pluralistic view of ontology, as well as a non-reductive, continuistic form of naturalism. Finally, we will connect the criticism of the so-called closure of the physical world with Margolis’ anti-autonomistic stance in defining artworks\",\"PeriodicalId\":360734,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"3 | 2 | 2022\\n Translation as Interpretation\",\"volume\":\"54 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"3 | 2 | 2022\\n Translation as Interpretation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30687/jolma/2723-9640/2022/02/009\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"3 | 2 | 2022\n Translation as Interpretation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30687/jolma/2723-9640/2022/02/009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我们支持对约瑟夫·马戈利斯(Joseph Margolis)哲学的持续解读,并捍卫在20世纪70年代,马戈利斯从原始的理论视角和超越分析框架的概念工具解决了分析艺术哲学所提出的问题。后来,这种观点变成了一种激进的实用主义观点,其中明确宽容的现实主义主张和非还原的自然主义与激进的历史主义和语境主义融合在一起。我们将通过关注20世纪50年代末至70年代马戈利斯美学论文中出现的两个重要概念来支持这一论点:类型-符号对和文化涌现的概念。一方面,我们将强调马戈利斯对皮尔斯关于类型-符号区分的第一个表述的感激之处,包括这对元素之间的强烈相互依存关系,以及反本质主义的、历史化的和语境化的类型概念。另一方面,我们将深入探讨马戈利斯对涌现和文化涌现概念的探索,包括一个真正多元化的本体论观点,以及一种非还原的、持续的自然主义形式。最后,我们将把对所谓物质世界封闭的批评与马戈利斯在定义艺术作品时的反自治立场联系起来
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Why Joseph Margolis Has Never Been an Analytic Philosopher of Art
In this paper, we support a continuistic reading of Joseph Margolis’ philosophy, defending the claim that in the 1970s, Margolis tackled the issues suggested by the analytic philosophy of art from an original theoretical perspective and through conceptual tools exceeding the analytical framework. Later that perspective turned out to be a radically pragmatist one, in which explicitly tolerant realistic claims and non-reductive naturalism converged with radical historicism and contextualism. We will endorse this thesis by focusing on two important concepts appearing in Margolis’ aesthetics essays from the late 1950s to the 1970s: the type-token pair and the notion of cultural emergence. On the one hand, we will emphasize Margolis’ indebtedness to Peirce’s first formulation of the type-token distinction, involving a strong interdependence between the two elements of the pair, as well as an anti-essentialistic, historicized, and contextualized notion of type. On the other hand, we will delve into Margolis’ exploration of the concept of emergence and cultural emergence, involving a genuinely pluralistic view of ontology, as well as a non-reductive, continuistic form of naturalism. Finally, we will connect the criticism of the so-called closure of the physical world with Margolis’ anti-autonomistic stance in defining artworks
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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