首页> 外文学位 >Towards a rational philosophy of the social sciences: Interpretivism and the rationality of other cultures (Gananath Obeyesekere, Peter Winch, Charles Taylor, Clifford Geertz, Marshall Sahlins).
【24h】

Towards a rational philosophy of the social sciences: Interpretivism and the rationality of other cultures (Gananath Obeyesekere, Peter Winch, Charles Taylor, Clifford Geertz, Marshall Sahlins).

机译:迈向社会科学的理性哲学:诠释主义和其他文化的理性(加纳纳特·奥贝塞塞克尔,彼得·温奇,查尔斯·泰勒,克利福德·盖茨,马歇尔·萨林斯)。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

The main thrust of this dissertation is to make a critique of interpretivism by scrutinizing five different advocates of it and their solutions to the problem of how social scientists can/should describe and explain other cultures or their aspects under concepts of rationality. The five advocates are Peter Winch, Charles Taylor, Clifford Geertz, Marshall Sahlins, and Gananath Obeyesekere.; In my view, none of the interpretivists discussed in this dissertation provides a cogent solution to the problem of rationality. There are two main problems with interpretivism. First, interpretivists exaggerate the differences between the social/cultural and the natural, and hence they also exaggerate the differences between the social and the natural sciences. Second, the interpretivists ignore important social science problems where internal perspectives are unenlightening, particularly outcomes due to the unintended consequences of agents' actions. This can be seen in their disregard of social institutions. What social scientists need to do is not simply to interpret or understand symbolic systems or agents' intentions, but to explain the role of social institutions where individuals act and behave.; The root of these problems is that the interpretivists are still entangled in positivism. They claim that the social sciences are different from the natural sciences and thus reject the unity of method. However, such a claim suggests that they tacitly accept the positivist view of natural science, arguably a caricature of natural science. In this regard, they are not so different from positivist social scientists who accept the same mistaken image of natural science. The only difference between them is whether they accept or reject the positivist view of science as a model for the social sciences. We need to overcome the mistaken positivist image of science and to develop and elaborate a philosophy of the social sciences which is more rational than either positivism or interpretivism as a shadow of positivism.
机译:本文的主要目的是通过研究解释主义的五个不同倡导者及其对社会科学家如何/应该在理性概念下描述/解释其他文化或其方面的问题的解决方案进行批评。五位拥护者是彼得·温奇,查尔斯·泰勒,克利福德·盖尔茨,马歇尔·萨林斯和加纳纳特·奥贝塞克尔。我认为,本文所讨论的解释论者都没有为合理性问题提供有力的解决方案。解释主义存在两个主要问题。首先,解释主义者夸大了社会/文化与自然之间的差异,因此他们也夸大了社会与自然科学之间的差异。其次,解释主义者忽略了内部观点无济于事的重要社会科学问题,尤其是由于代理人行为的意外后果而导致的结果。从他们对社会制度的漠视中可以看出。社会科学家需要做的不仅是解释或理解符号系统或代理人的意图,还需要解释个人行为和举止中社会机构的作用。这些问题的根源在于,解释主义者仍然纠结于实证主义。他们声称社会科学不同于自然科学,因此拒绝了方法的统一。但是,这样的说法暗示他们默认接受自然科学的实证主义观点,可以说是自然科学的讽刺漫画。在这方面,他们与接受同样错误的自然科学形象的实证主义社会科学家没有什么不同。它们之间的唯一区别是他们是否接受实证主义科学作为社会科学的模型。我们需要克服错误的实证主义科学形象,并发展和完善社会科学哲学,这种哲学比实证主义或解释主义作为实证主义的阴影更为合理。

著录项

  • 作者

    Yoshida, Kei.;

  • 作者单位

    York University (Canada).;

  • 授予单位 York University (Canada).;
  • 学科 Philosophy.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2005
  • 页码 231 p.
  • 总页数 231
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类 哲学理论;
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:43:02

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号