后现代主义建构主义的贫困:从休谟、达尔文和维特根斯坦论证自然主义

IF 0.4 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
METAPHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2024-09-10 DOI:10.1111/meta.12705
Ariel Peckel
{"title":"后现代主义建构主义的贫困:从休谟、达尔文和维特根斯坦论证自然主义","authors":"Ariel Peckel","doi":"10.1111/meta.12705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>This essay develops a naturalist framework based on Hume, Darwin, and Wittgenstein against postmodernist constructivism. That framework claims universal features of human biology, cognition, and behavior to explain our cultural histories, running contrary to two core constructivist doctrines of postmodernist scholarship: <i>mutual opacity</i> and <i>epistemic violence</i>. Mutual opacity posits the incommensurability of systems rooted in differing contexts, cultures, and group identities, while epistemic violence morally impugns the extension of the knowledge claims of any such system beyond its strictly localized boundaries. This is the extension that universalist approaches, like naturalism, are recriminated against owing to their claims to discover encompassing standpoint-independent and transcultural features of human constitution and modes of life. Comparative evaluation of these approaches exposes the failure of postmodernist constructivism to explain parallel practices, conventions, and institutions across human cultural histories, which universalist naturalism succeeds at, while moreover revealing how this failure undermines its agendas of social justice.</p>","PeriodicalId":46874,"journal":{"name":"METAPHILOSOPHY","volume":"55 4-5","pages":"547-565"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The poverty of postmodernist constructivism: And a case for naturalism out of Hume, Darwin, and Wittgenstein\",\"authors\":\"Ariel Peckel\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/meta.12705\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>This essay develops a naturalist framework based on Hume, Darwin, and Wittgenstein against postmodernist constructivism. That framework claims universal features of human biology, cognition, and behavior to explain our cultural histories, running contrary to two core constructivist doctrines of postmodernist scholarship: <i>mutual opacity</i> and <i>epistemic violence</i>. Mutual opacity posits the incommensurability of systems rooted in differing contexts, cultures, and group identities, while epistemic violence morally impugns the extension of the knowledge claims of any such system beyond its strictly localized boundaries. This is the extension that universalist approaches, like naturalism, are recriminated against owing to their claims to discover encompassing standpoint-independent and transcultural features of human constitution and modes of life. Comparative evaluation of these approaches exposes the failure of postmodernist constructivism to explain parallel practices, conventions, and institutions across human cultural histories, which universalist naturalism succeeds at, while moreover revealing how this failure undermines its agendas of social justice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46874,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"METAPHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\"55 4-5\",\"pages\":\"547-565\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"METAPHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/meta.12705\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"METAPHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/meta.12705","RegionNum":3,"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

摘要

这篇文章以休谟、达尔文和维特根斯坦为基础,针对后现代主义建构主义提出了一个自然主义框架。该框架主张以人类生物学、认知和行为的普遍特征来解释我们的文化历史,这与后现代主义学术的两个核心建构主义学说--相互不透明性和认识暴力--背道而驰。相互不透明性假定了植根于不同背景、文化和群体身份的系统的不可通约性,而认识论暴力则从道德上指责任何此类系统的知识主张超越其严格的本地化边界。这就是普遍主义方法(如自然主义)所指责的延伸,因为它们声称发现了人类构成和生活方式中独立于立场和跨文化的特征。对这些方法的比较评估揭示了后现代主义建构主义在解释人类文化史上的平行实践、惯例和制度方面的失败,而普遍主义自然主义却在这方面取得了成功,同时还揭示了这种失败是如何破坏其社会正义议程的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The poverty of postmodernist constructivism: And a case for naturalism out of Hume, Darwin, and Wittgenstein

This essay develops a naturalist framework based on Hume, Darwin, and Wittgenstein against postmodernist constructivism. That framework claims universal features of human biology, cognition, and behavior to explain our cultural histories, running contrary to two core constructivist doctrines of postmodernist scholarship: mutual opacity and epistemic violence. Mutual opacity posits the incommensurability of systems rooted in differing contexts, cultures, and group identities, while epistemic violence morally impugns the extension of the knowledge claims of any such system beyond its strictly localized boundaries. This is the extension that universalist approaches, like naturalism, are recriminated against owing to their claims to discover encompassing standpoint-independent and transcultural features of human constitution and modes of life. Comparative evaluation of these approaches exposes the failure of postmodernist constructivism to explain parallel practices, conventions, and institutions across human cultural histories, which universalist naturalism succeeds at, while moreover revealing how this failure undermines its agendas of social justice.

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
METAPHILOSOPHY
METAPHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: Metaphilosophy publishes articles and reviews books stressing considerations about philosophy and particular schools, methods, or fields of philosophy. The intended scope is very broad: no method, field, or school is excluded.
×
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