This paper will discuss the relation between the concepts of nature and culture and their intricate interdependency, focusing on modernity. Moreover, it will analyze the dichotomy that has historically emerged and its...This paper will discuss the relation between the concepts of nature and culture and their intricate interdependency, focusing on modernity. Moreover, it will analyze the dichotomy that has historically emerged and its implications. Human beings have had different conceptions about what is natural and what is non-natural throughout their history. Before Modernity we did not conceive nature as being a different ontological reality, we did not perceive it as being separated from us. After modernity everything changed, and we began to see nature as a mere object. Nature became, then, a representation, like a painting on a wall. Our contemporary world vision, Weltanschauung, was formed mainly during the 16th and 17th centuries. There was, at that time, a considerable change in the way we perceived and described the world. This new mentality and this new form of representing the cosmos provided the basis for our new way of thinking. They were the substrate upon which our modern paradigm was erected. The world＇s conversion in an image only became a reality thanks to technology. But this change happened only because of the paradigm shift originated in the 17th century. Technique always has been a way to articulate how （and what） we think. With the Greek, technique （technd） was, at first, an extension of the physis. Thus, the technique was a way of being instead of a way of thinking. After the paradigm shift in the 17th century （a metaphysical change, in the very way we connected to the world）, the human being left his former place. Perhaps would be even better if we talked about nature and culture as being as a hybrid. What, at the source, was natural, through the flows of production and consumption, undergoes transformations and becomes something that is not natural anymore but, at the same time, not completely artificial either. Our world, once divided between the social and the natural, becomes a space where a constant process, a continuous flow, is constantly happening. From that dichotomy between something good and something bad arises a dialectic, in which we no longer can see any division whatsoever.展开更多
Moral generalism and particularism are two positions in meta-ethics which have different views regarding the relation between moral thought and principles. By accepting this relationship, generalists emphasize the nec...Moral generalism and particularism are two positions in meta-ethics which have different views regarding the relation between moral thought and principles. By accepting this relationship, generalists emphasize the necessity of principles in decision making process, and claim that the rationality of moral thought depends on the provision of a suitable supply ofmoral principles. In contrast, particularists have rejected, or at least doubted, the existence of moral principles, and believe that the rationality of moral thought depends on recognizing special features of a case and relevant conditions. This is why, unlike generalists, they use case study method rather than syllogism in decision making process and moral judgment. Consequently, to support their view, particularists commonly resort to holism in the theory of reasons, while atomism is in support of generalism. To evaluate these two attitudes, this study surveys some arguments that particularists and generalists proposed to justify their view and criticize the rival＇s one, and also explains their positions concerning the epistemological and metaphysical role of moral principles and reasons. Finally, after evaluating their claims, the importance of both approaches in meta-ethics is stressed.展开更多
文摘This paper will discuss the relation between the concepts of nature and culture and their intricate interdependency, focusing on modernity. Moreover, it will analyze the dichotomy that has historically emerged and its implications. Human beings have had different conceptions about what is natural and what is non-natural throughout their history. Before Modernity we did not conceive nature as being a different ontological reality, we did not perceive it as being separated from us. After modernity everything changed, and we began to see nature as a mere object. Nature became, then, a representation, like a painting on a wall. Our contemporary world vision, Weltanschauung, was formed mainly during the 16th and 17th centuries. There was, at that time, a considerable change in the way we perceived and described the world. This new mentality and this new form of representing the cosmos provided the basis for our new way of thinking. They were the substrate upon which our modern paradigm was erected. The world＇s conversion in an image only became a reality thanks to technology. But this change happened only because of the paradigm shift originated in the 17th century. Technique always has been a way to articulate how （and what） we think. With the Greek, technique （technd） was, at first, an extension of the physis. Thus, the technique was a way of being instead of a way of thinking. After the paradigm shift in the 17th century （a metaphysical change, in the very way we connected to the world）, the human being left his former place. Perhaps would be even better if we talked about nature and culture as being as a hybrid. What, at the source, was natural, through the flows of production and consumption, undergoes transformations and becomes something that is not natural anymore but, at the same time, not completely artificial either. Our world, once divided between the social and the natural, becomes a space where a constant process, a continuous flow, is constantly happening. From that dichotomy between something good and something bad arises a dialectic, in which we no longer can see any division whatsoever.
文摘Moral generalism and particularism are two positions in meta-ethics which have different views regarding the relation between moral thought and principles. By accepting this relationship, generalists emphasize the necessity of principles in decision making process, and claim that the rationality of moral thought depends on the provision of a suitable supply ofmoral principles. In contrast, particularists have rejected, or at least doubted, the existence of moral principles, and believe that the rationality of moral thought depends on recognizing special features of a case and relevant conditions. This is why, unlike generalists, they use case study method rather than syllogism in decision making process and moral judgment. Consequently, to support their view, particularists commonly resort to holism in the theory of reasons, while atomism is in support of generalism. To evaluate these two attitudes, this study surveys some arguments that particularists and generalists proposed to justify their view and criticize the rival＇s one, and also explains their positions concerning the epistemological and metaphysical role of moral principles and reasons. Finally, after evaluating their claims, the importance of both approaches in meta-ethics is stressed.
