后现代主义、马克思主义和现代性中的贫乏科学

Eduardo Lopes Cabral Maia
{"title":"后现代主义、马克思主义和现代性中的贫乏科学","authors":"Eduardo Lopes Cabral Maia","doi":"10.15210/PP.V0I13.3187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Based on the discussions about modernity, rationality and science, this article intends to broach  the debate, within the field of Social Sciences, among postmodernists and Marxists about the  validity of modern science and the criterion to determinate, or not, a new historical stage. To  situate this debate, we sought an analysis of the Michel Meffesoli’s postmodern thought and the  Marxist critique of Ellen Wood Meiksins. As a result, this article intends to clarify key points of  the theoretical debate and present a critical analysis about the validity, and the problems, of  Marxist and post-modern’s approaches.","PeriodicalId":30291,"journal":{"name":"Pensamento Plural","volume":"1 1","pages":"7-27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pós-Modernos, marxistas e a pobre ciência na modernidade\",\"authors\":\"Eduardo Lopes Cabral Maia\",\"doi\":\"10.15210/PP.V0I13.3187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Based on the discussions about modernity, rationality and science, this article intends to broach  the debate, within the field of Social Sciences, among postmodernists and Marxists about the  validity of modern science and the criterion to determinate, or not, a new historical stage. To  situate this debate, we sought an analysis of the Michel Meffesoli’s postmodern thought and the  Marxist critique of Ellen Wood Meiksins. As a result, this article intends to clarify key points of  the theoretical debate and present a critical analysis about the validity, and the problems, of  Marxist and post-modern’s approaches.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30291,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pensamento Plural\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"7-27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pensamento Plural\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.15210/PP.V0I13.3187\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pensamento Plural","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15210/PP.V0I13.3187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

本文在对现代性、理性与科学的讨论基础上,探讨了社会科学领域内后现代主义者与马克思主义者之间关于现代科学的有效性以及确定或不确定一个新的历史阶段的标准的争论。为了定位这场争论,我们对米歇尔·梅费索利的后现代思想和马克思主义对艾伦·伍德·梅克斯的批判进行了分析。因此,本文旨在澄清理论争论的要点,并对马克思主义和后现代主义方法的有效性及其问题进行批判性分析。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pós-Modernos, marxistas e a pobre ciência na modernidade
Based on the discussions about modernity, rationality and science, this article intends to broach  the debate, within the field of Social Sciences, among postmodernists and Marxists about the  validity of modern science and the criterion to determinate, or not, a new historical stage. To  situate this debate, we sought an analysis of the Michel Meffesoli’s postmodern thought and the  Marxist critique of Ellen Wood Meiksins. As a result, this article intends to clarify key points of  the theoretical debate and present a critical analysis about the validity, and the problems, of  Marxist and post-modern’s approaches.
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
审稿时长
24 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