Hegel,Analytic Philosophy’s Pharmakon

In this article I argue that Hegel has become analytic philosophy’s “pharmakon”—both its “poison” and its “cure.” Traditionally, Hegel’s philosophy has been attacked by Anglo-American analytical philosophers for its alleged charlatanism and irrelevance. Yet starting from the 1970s there has been a revival of interest in Hegel’s philosophical work, which, I suggest, may be explained by three developments: (1) the revival of interest in Aristotelianism following Saul Kripke’s and Hilary Putnam’s work on natural kinds, and Elizabeth Anscombe’s, Philippa Foot’s, and Putnam’s opposition to the fact-value distinction; (2) the rehabilitation of Hegel’s theories by various philosophers, including Robert Pippin, Terry Pinkard, Fred Beiser, Robert Stern, and Stephen Houlgate; and (3) the Sellars-inspired philosophy of mind of John McDowell and of Robert Brandom. The first and third of these reasons, I argue, have led several analytic theorists to cast Hegel in a more positive light as the “cure” for analytic philosophy. The combined outcome of these changes, both ironic and fitting, is that the Hegelian principle of internal critique has played a significant role not only in analytic philosophy’s rapprochement with Hegel’s philosophy but also in overcoming the Analytic-Continental philosophical divide.     

Changing philosophies of action? Argentine’s cultural policies in the 21st century

ABSTRACT

How can the many institutional and ideological changes of Argentine cultural policy at the beginning of the 21st century be explained? This paper analyses how representations of culture, programs and public actions are translated into different ‘philosophies of action’ depending on the political stripe of each government and the agents of cultural policy. If the predominant philosophy of action during the whole period is ‘culture as an economic resource’, it coexists with other philosophies: ‘culture as show’, ‘a communication tool’, ‘social inclusion’ and finally ‘a factor of citizenship’.     

The Positivism Dispute in German Sociology, 1954–1970

This article offers a re-contextualization of the Positivism Dispute between the Frankfurt School and advocates of empirical sociology in the German sociological profession between 1954 and 1970. Investigating the reasons why the German Sociological Association convened in Tübingen in October 1961, it assigns a more peripheral role to Karl Popper and this now famous seminar. Focusing instead on the debate among German sociologists from the mid-1950s which prompted the convention of the seminar and the invitation for Popper to speak, the article maintains that philosophy of history was the central concern of the Positivism Dispute. In this debate, members of the Frankfurt School emphasized contingency in history and society, while sociologists such as René König, Helmut Schelsky, Ralf Dahrendorf, and Arnold Gehlen advocated sociology as the empirical study of ‘given’ social facts. By doing so the article questions the narrative of the Positivism Dispute advanced by Karl Popper and some of his followers, as well as interpretations which have focused on debates during the aftermath of the Tübingen seminar in the 1960s.     

“石匠村”的意义——窦村的石工传统与南京传统建筑地方性的关系

当前保护古都风貌成为南京城市发展的重要工作,这主要是指保护和利用各个历史时期遗留下来的建筑遗产。而我们在传统建筑遗产保护工作中往往只重视对建筑物本身的保护,采取的方法也只局限在测绘、图纸分析、按图纸施工等层面,却忽视了其最初建造过程中传统工艺的保护。针对传统建造工艺与建筑地方性的关系的问题,对南京郊区的被称为“石匠村”的窦村所特有的石工传统与南京传统建筑地方性的关系进行的讨论。     

中国近现代古法制作墨锭的检测与分析

本工作以中国近现代古法制作墨锭为研究对象,采用元素分析、X-射线荧光光谱分析(XRF)、热重分析(TGA)、透射电子显微镜分析(TEM)、动态光散射分析(DLS)及接触角测试等多种表征方法,分别对墨块本体及其表面描金部分的元素组成,墨锭的烟、胶以及其他添加剂的成分配比,墨颗粒微观形貌及单分散尺寸,墨颗粒聚集状态及尺寸,墨锭表面的亲疏水性等进行了测定,系统研究了几种不同工艺的传统中国墨锭的性质、性能特点。结果表明,不同墨锭在元素组成、成分配比以及微观尺寸、墨颗粒聚集状态、表面亲疏水性上存在一定的规律性。对墨锭物理化学性质的科学检测与分析,可以为中国传统墨锭的科学检测基础数据库提供数据支持,而通过对其具体关联与差异的研究,还可与制墨工艺、墨的品质相关联,为墨的使用、保存和鉴别提供科学依据,为墨的写印效果研究提供参考。     

京瓷企业发展的宏观经济环境分析

京瓷企业发展与日本乃至世界经济环境息息相关,特别是日本经济高速增长,稳定增长,泡沫经济形成与破灭,不仅对京瓷,而且对整个日本企业界都产生了巨大的影响,但同样的宏观经济大环境,对各个企业的影响并不相同,在这正反两方面的双重影响下,有的企业发展壮大,有的企业衰微败落,京瓷属于前者,其成功在于始终不渝坚持稻盛和夫经营哲学,应不同时期经济环境,以光明正大的经营苦炼内功,构筑了京瓷企业健康,坚实的体制。     

Doing is Learning: Analysis of an Unsuccessful Attempt to Adapt TEK/IK Methodology to Norwegian Sámi Circumstances

Abstract

This article describes a case where an attempt was made to introduce TEK/IK into a conflict between Sámi reindeer owners and environmental institutions. The conflict was brought on by the establishment of a national park in Southern Sámi areas in Norway. At first, the Sámi were in favour of the park, but later on their attitudes changed as the content of planned national park developed. The reindeer owners discovered that the size of the park would be reduced, leaving out what they thought were significant areas in need of protection. They saw the encouragement of increased tourism activities as a threat to reindeer herding and felt alienated by the number of representatives they received in the park management structures. On the basis of these observations reindeer owners protested, but were ignored. As researchers well-established in the Southern Sámi area, we were brought into conversations regarding the park as the local reindeer owners searched for ways of bringing new arguments into the process. At this point we thought TEK/IK represented an opportunity to add weight to Sámi perspectives. As the title of this article indicates, as push came to shove we did not succeed in making room for local participation in our TEK/IK project, despite these existing on-going relations. The article attempts to understand what happened. Our analysis is based upon a perception of TEK/IK as not one, but at least two co-constituted knowledge practices. The premise is that research failures are as important to publish as successes. Our joint ethnographic experience has methodological implications for future TEK/IK research.