With or Without Windows? Winch, Apel and The Monadology of Forms of Life

Gonzalo Scivoletto

Abstract


The following paper analyzes some epistemological categories from anthropological problem of understanding a “strange” form of life. To do this, it is taken the philosophical social program of Peter Winch and in particular his critique of classic anthropology “Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande” by Evans-Pritchard. Winch, following Wittgenstein, represents a true paradigm shift within the analytic tradition of social science, which shows some similarities with hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoeur), philosophy and intercultural ethics (Fornet-Betancourt) and pragmatism (Bernstein). In this context, the problem of the multiplicity of forms of life and the respective “commensurability” of standards of rationality it is taken. In response to the charge of “relativism” from his theoretical proposal, it can be said that there are two categories of anthropological and social analysis that would allow or that would guide intercultural understanding: formal analogies and limiting notions. Finally, these categories are contrasted with the perspective of Karl-Otto Apel.


Keywords


Interculturality; Anthropology; Relativism; Rules; Forms of Life

References


APEL, K.-O. (1985). La transformación de la filosofía, 2 Tomos. Madrid: Taurus.

APEL, K.-O. y Dussel, E. (2004). Ética del discurso y ética de la liberación. Madrid: Trotta.

BERNSTEIN, R. (1991). “Una revisión de las conexiones entre inconmensurabilidad y otredad”, en Isegoría 3, 5-25.

CORREDOR, C. (1999). Filosofía del lenguaje. Una aproximación a las teorías del significado del siglo XX. Madrid: Visor.

EVANS-PRITCHARD, E. (1937). Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande. London: Oxford Clarendon Press.

FERNÁNDEZ, G. (2010). “To Understand Understanding: How Intercultural Communication is Possible in Daily Life”, Human Studies 33, 371-393.

FLATHMAN, R. E. (2000). “Wittgenstein and the social sciences: critical reflections concerning Peter Winch`s interpretations and appropriations of Wittgenstein`s thought”, History of the Human Sciences 13(2): 1-15.

HABERMAS, J (1999). Teoría de la acción comunicativa. Tomo I: Racionalidad de la acción y racionalización social. Madrid: Taurus.

HEALY, P. (2000). “Self-other relations and the rationality of cultures”, Philosophy Social Criticism 26 (6): 61-83.

HORTON, J. (2000). “Relativism, reality and philosophy”, History of the Human Sciences 13(1): 19-36.

LERNER, B. D. (2002). Rules, magic and instrumental reason: a critical interpretation of Peter Winch´s philosophy of social sciences. London and New York: Routledge.

LUKES, S. (2000). “Different cultures, different rationalities?”, History of the Human Sciences 13(1): 3-18.

PANIKKAR, R. (2010). “La dialéctica de la razón armada”, entrevista publicada en Topologik – Studi Filosofici 7.

PLEASANTS, N. (1999). Wittgenstein and the Idea of a Critical Social Theory. London and New York: Routledge.

PLEASANTS, N. (2000). “Winch, Wittgenstein and the Idea of a Critical Social Theory”, History of the Human Sciences 13(1): 78-91.

VIAÑA, J. et al. (2009). Interculturalidad crítica y descolonización. La Paz: III-CAB.

WINCH, P. (1972). Ethics and Action. London: Routledge & Kegal Paul.

WINCH, P. (1990 [1958]). Ciencia social y filosofía. Buenos Aires: Amorrortu.

WINCH, P. (1991). “Para comprender una sociedad primitiva”, Alteridades 1(1): 82-101.

WINCH, P. (1997). “Can We Understand Ourselves?”, Philosophical Investigations 20(3): 193-204.

WINCH, P. (2003). The Idea of Social Sciences and it´s Relation to Philosophy, 2ª ed. London: Routledge.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22370/rhv.2016.7.448

Copyright (c) 2016 Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.