首页> 外文学位 >Anarchy and anti-intellectualism: Reason, foundationalism, and the anarchist tradition
【24h】

Anarchy and anti-intellectualism: Reason, foundationalism, and the anarchist tradition

机译:无政府状态和反思想主义:理性,基础主义和无政府主义传统

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Some contemporary anarchist scholarship has rejected the Enlightenment-inspired reliance on reason that was supposedly central to classical anarchist thought and expanded the anarchist critique to address issues ignored by their classical predecessors. In making reason the object of critique, some contemporary anarchists expanded the anarchist framework to include critiques of domination residing outside the traditional power centers of the state, the capitalist firm, and the church thereby shedding light on the authoritarian tendencies inherent in the intellect itself.;Though contemporary anarchist scholarship has sought to apply this anti-authoritarian ethos to the realms of epistemology and ontology (by employing Michel Foucault's analysis of power and other postfoundational thinkers), their own framework of analysis is glaringly susceptible to what Habermas called a ''performative contradiction.'' In questioning the authority of aspects of even our own intellect (and the epistemological and ontological presuppositions that accompany it) we call into question even the authority of our own argumentation.;I answer this ''contradiction'' by interrogating two intellectual traditions. Firstly, I question a key postfoundational anarchist premise. Namely, I assess whether an understanding of classical anarchist thinkers as quintessential children of the Enlightenment is justified. Secondly, I offer an alternative path to reconciliation between the anti-authoritarian values of the anarchists and the anti-metaphysical values of the postfoundationalists (that I think mirrors anarchist anti-authoritarian concerns) by suggesting we are better served to think of an anti-authoritarianism of the intellect by employing three key twentieth century thinkers: Richard Rorty, Paul Feyerabend, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. I do so while anchoring Rorty's, Feyerabend's, and Wittgenstein's philosophies in the 19th century anti-metaphysical thought of Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosophical anarchism of Max Stirner.
机译:一些当代无政府主义者的学术研究拒绝了启蒙运动激发的对理性的依赖,而理性的原因被认为是古典无政府主义者思想的核心,并扩大了对无政府主义者的评论,以解决其古典前辈所忽略的问题。为了使之成为批评的对象,一些当代的无政府主义者扩大了无政府主义者的框架,将对国家,权力机构和教会的传统权力中心之外的统治的批评包括在内,从而阐明了智力本身固有的威权主义倾向。 ;尽管当代无政府主义学者一直试图将这种反威权主义的精神应用到认识论和本体论领域(通过采用米歇尔·福柯对权力和其他基础后思想家的分析),但他们自己的分析框架很容易受到哈贝马斯所谓的``在质疑甚至我们自己的智力的各个方面的权威(以及伴随它的认识论和本体论前提)时,我们甚至质疑我们自己论证的权威。两种知识传统。首先,我对基础后无政府主义者的一个重要前提提出质疑。即,我评估将古典无政府主义思想家理解为启蒙运动的典型孩子是否合理。其次,我提出了一条更好的思路,即建议我们更好地考虑反抗主义,以此来调和无政府主义者的反威权主义价值观与基础主义后主义者的反形而上主义价值观之间的和解。通过聘用20世纪三个关键思想家:理查德·罗蒂,保罗·费耶拉本德和路德维希·维特根斯坦,对知识分子实行威权主义。在这样做的同时,我将罗蒂(Rorty),费耶阿本本(Feyerabend)和维特根斯坦(Wittgenstein)的哲学锚定在19世纪弗里德里希·尼采(Friedrich Nietzsche)的反形而上学思想和马克思·斯特纳(Max Stirner)的哲学无政府主义中。

著录项

  • 作者

    Pedroso, Joaquin A.;

  • 作者单位

    Florida International University.;

  • 授予单位 Florida International University.;
  • 学科 Philosophy.;Political science.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2016
  • 页码 227 p.
  • 总页数 227
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

  • 入库时间 2022-08-17 11:46:44

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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