French philosopher Gabriel Tarde is known as a philosopher who describes sociology ontologically with an integrated approach and mostly by means of metaphysical interpretations. Opposing his coeval Durkheim＇s “socia...French philosopher Gabriel Tarde is known as a philosopher who describes sociology ontologically with an integrated approach and mostly by means of metaphysical interpretations. Opposing his coeval Durkheim＇s “social fact”, Tarde claims that this notion constitutes a methodological problem and the term “social” of Durkheim＇s crowds out “variability of relations”. According to him, determinants in social relations are more general and dynamic notions, such as： “change”, “contrast”, and “adaptation”. In this respect, not quite celebrated in his era, this philosopher is widely known as a metaphysician as well as a sociologist. His metaphysical ideas are clearly visible in various sections of his works, where he described with inspirations from natural phenomenon. Descriptions and analysis on natural phenomena constitute the greater part of his works. He points out similarities between the universe and the world of men in terms of functioning. Presenting these similarities, Tarde seems to reject any division between the men and the nature built up by “positive philosophy” and modern understanding. With his natural descriptions and concepts he inferred from these descriptions, such as“contradiction” and “harmony”, he almost tries to re-establish the bonds between the nature and the social life. Tarde＇s perception of holistic being and his ideas of “contradiction” and “harmony” in nature, are very close to the most basic axioms of the traditional Chinese thought. As a matter of fact, Tarde denotes these similarities in his novella called “Fragment d＇histoire future （Underground Man）”. It is also an example to display an “East-West encounter” on a fictional plane.展开更多
Aristotle＇s Nicomachean Ethics is central to John McDowell＇s classic Mind and World. In Lectures IV and V of that work, McDowell makes three claims concerning Aristotle＇s ethics： first, that Aristotle did not base...Aristotle＇s Nicomachean Ethics is central to John McDowell＇s classic Mind and World. In Lectures IV and V of that work, McDowell makes three claims concerning Aristotle＇s ethics： first, that Aristotle did not base his ethics on an externalist, naturalistic basis （including a theory of human nature）; second, that attempts to read him as an ethical naturalist are a modem anachronism, generated by the supposed need to ground all viable philosophical claims on claims analogous to the natural sciences; and third, that a suitably construed Aristotelian conception of ＂second nature＂ can form the basis of a viable contemporary philosophy of mind, world, and normativity. This paper challenges each of these three claims. Aristotle＇s ethics, we will claim alongside Terence Irwin, Bemard Williams, Philippa Foot, and many premodem commentators, is based in the kind of physics, metaphysics, and metaphysical biology that McDowell says it cannot be. Historically, we will argue that McDowell＇s argument that Aristotle＇s ethical reasoning is ＂autonomous＂ or ＂self-standing＂ is distinctly modem, citing evidence from the leading medieval commentators on the Nicomachean Ethics. The felt need to which McDowell responds, of reading Aristotle＇s ethical or political thought as wholly non-metaphysical, arises from out of the successes of the natural sciences in the modem world, which he agrees discredit the Aristotelian, teleological account of nature. In the final part of the paper, we propose that McDowell＇s account of normativity, rooted in the non-metaphysical ＂second nature＂ he reads into Aristotle, we will contend, is as it stands inescapably relativistic. On a different note, we need also to recognize, as McDowell does not, that this is a new Aristotle, one shaped by our requirements and space of reasons, not the mind and world of the Greek Philosopher himself.展开更多
文摘French philosopher Gabriel Tarde is known as a philosopher who describes sociology ontologically with an integrated approach and mostly by means of metaphysical interpretations. Opposing his coeval Durkheim＇s “social fact”, Tarde claims that this notion constitutes a methodological problem and the term “social” of Durkheim＇s crowds out “variability of relations”. According to him, determinants in social relations are more general and dynamic notions, such as： “change”, “contrast”, and “adaptation”. In this respect, not quite celebrated in his era, this philosopher is widely known as a metaphysician as well as a sociologist. His metaphysical ideas are clearly visible in various sections of his works, where he described with inspirations from natural phenomenon. Descriptions and analysis on natural phenomena constitute the greater part of his works. He points out similarities between the universe and the world of men in terms of functioning. Presenting these similarities, Tarde seems to reject any division between the men and the nature built up by “positive philosophy” and modern understanding. With his natural descriptions and concepts he inferred from these descriptions, such as“contradiction” and “harmony”, he almost tries to re-establish the bonds between the nature and the social life. Tarde＇s perception of holistic being and his ideas of “contradiction” and “harmony” in nature, are very close to the most basic axioms of the traditional Chinese thought. As a matter of fact, Tarde denotes these similarities in his novella called “Fragment d＇histoire future （Underground Man）”. It is also an example to display an “East-West encounter” on a fictional plane.
文摘Aristotle＇s Nicomachean Ethics is central to John McDowell＇s classic Mind and World. In Lectures IV and V of that work, McDowell makes three claims concerning Aristotle＇s ethics： first, that Aristotle did not base his ethics on an externalist, naturalistic basis （including a theory of human nature）; second, that attempts to read him as an ethical naturalist are a modem anachronism, generated by the supposed need to ground all viable philosophical claims on claims analogous to the natural sciences; and third, that a suitably construed Aristotelian conception of ＂second nature＂ can form the basis of a viable contemporary philosophy of mind, world, and normativity. This paper challenges each of these three claims. Aristotle＇s ethics, we will claim alongside Terence Irwin, Bemard Williams, Philippa Foot, and many premodem commentators, is based in the kind of physics, metaphysics, and metaphysical biology that McDowell says it cannot be. Historically, we will argue that McDowell＇s argument that Aristotle＇s ethical reasoning is ＂autonomous＂ or ＂self-standing＂ is distinctly modem, citing evidence from the leading medieval commentators on the Nicomachean Ethics. The felt need to which McDowell responds, of reading Aristotle＇s ethical or political thought as wholly non-metaphysical, arises from out of the successes of the natural sciences in the modem world, which he agrees discredit the Aristotelian, teleological account of nature. In the final part of the paper, we propose that McDowell＇s account of normativity, rooted in the non-metaphysical ＂second nature＂ he reads into Aristotle, we will contend, is as it stands inescapably relativistic. On a different note, we need also to recognize, as McDowell does not, that this is a new Aristotle, one shaped by our requirements and space of reasons, not the mind and world of the Greek Philosopher himself.
