透视多元自然主义的“本体论逻辑”:一个现实主义批判

IF 1.1 2区 社会学 Q2 ANTHROPOLOGY
E. Bråten
{"title":"透视多元自然主义的“本体论逻辑”:一个现实主义批判","authors":"E. Bråten","doi":"10.1177/14634996211072369","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I argue for a realist anthropology based on the recognition of mind-independent reality; pitching this premise against concerted anti-dualist tendencies in contemporary anthropological thinking. I spell out core analytical entailments of these, in my view, profoundly conflicting premises. In particular, I focus on perspectival multi-naturalism, arguing that despite adherents’ claims to reinvigorate studies of ‘ontology’, this approach instead exaggerates epistemological dimensions. When assessed from a realist stance, its ground position engenders a series of epistemic fallacies by which the ontological is, effectively, subordinated under epistemology. Advocates’ reluctance to appreciate a distinction between mind and mind-independent reality entails a profound contraction of perspective in terms of empirical and methodological scope, and, analytically, a disregard for ontological complexity and depth, thus curtailing the importance of anthropology in wider academic discourse.","PeriodicalId":51554,"journal":{"name":"Anthropological Theory","volume":"22 1","pages":"201 - 221"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ‘onto-logics’ of perspectival multi-naturalism: A realist critique\",\"authors\":\"E. Bråten\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/14634996211072369\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article, I argue for a realist anthropology based on the recognition of mind-independent reality; pitching this premise against concerted anti-dualist tendencies in contemporary anthropological thinking. I spell out core analytical entailments of these, in my view, profoundly conflicting premises. In particular, I focus on perspectival multi-naturalism, arguing that despite adherents’ claims to reinvigorate studies of ‘ontology’, this approach instead exaggerates epistemological dimensions. When assessed from a realist stance, its ground position engenders a series of epistemic fallacies by which the ontological is, effectively, subordinated under epistemology. Advocates’ reluctance to appreciate a distinction between mind and mind-independent reality entails a profound contraction of perspective in terms of empirical and methodological scope, and, analytically, a disregard for ontological complexity and depth, thus curtailing the importance of anthropology in wider academic discourse.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51554,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anthropological Theory\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"201 - 221\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anthropological Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996211072369\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANTHROPOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anthropological Theory","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14634996211072369","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANTHROPOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在这篇文章中,我主张一种基于意识独立现实的现实主义人类学;将这一前提与当代人类学思想中一致的反二元论倾向进行对比。在我看来,我将阐述这些深刻冲突的前提的核心分析含义。我特别关注透视多元自然主义,认为尽管追随者声称要重振“本体论”的研究,但这种方法反而夸大了认识论的维度。当从现实主义的立场来评估时,它的立场产生了一系列的认识论谬论,通过这些谬论,本体论实际上从属于认识论。倡议者不愿理解意识和独立于意识的现实之间的区别,这在经验和方法论的范围内导致了观点的深刻收缩,并且在分析上忽视了本体论的复杂性和深度,从而削弱了人类学在更广泛的学术话语中的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The ‘onto-logics’ of perspectival multi-naturalism: A realist critique
In this article, I argue for a realist anthropology based on the recognition of mind-independent reality; pitching this premise against concerted anti-dualist tendencies in contemporary anthropological thinking. I spell out core analytical entailments of these, in my view, profoundly conflicting premises. In particular, I focus on perspectival multi-naturalism, arguing that despite adherents’ claims to reinvigorate studies of ‘ontology’, this approach instead exaggerates epistemological dimensions. When assessed from a realist stance, its ground position engenders a series of epistemic fallacies by which the ontological is, effectively, subordinated under epistemology. Advocates’ reluctance to appreciate a distinction between mind and mind-independent reality entails a profound contraction of perspective in terms of empirical and methodological scope, and, analytically, a disregard for ontological complexity and depth, thus curtailing the importance of anthropology in wider academic discourse.
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
Anthropological Theory
Anthropological Theory ANTHROPOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: Anthropological Theory is an international peer reviewed journal seeking to strengthen anthropological theorizing in different areas of the world. This is an exciting forum for new insights into theoretical issues in anthropology and more broadly, social theory. Anthropological Theory publishes articles engaging with a variety of theoretical debates in areas including: * marxism * feminism * political philosophy * historical sociology * hermeneutics * critical theory * philosophy of science * biological anthropology * archaeology
×
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