Autonomy, Constitutivity, Exemplars, Paradigms

Timur Ųcan
{"title":"Autonomy, Constitutivity, Exemplars, Paradigms","authors":"Timur Ųcan","doi":"10.18192/cjcs.vi10.6613","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper proposes an exploration of relationships and exchanges between the philosophies of Cavell and Kuhn by the study of aspects of the philosophy of Wittgenstein. Although the notions of language games and family resemblances used by Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions have been elaborated by Wittgenstein, Cavell’s reading of Wittgenstein inspired that of Kuhn. I will attempt to show that against this background, Cavell’s conception of the relations of arts, works of arts, and artists, can be relevantly compared to Kuhn’s conception of the relations of sciences, scientific successes, and scientific practitioners. Three ways of elucidating the mutual exchanges between Cavell and Kuhn may be distinguished: One consists in clarifying the ways in which Cavell and Kuhn explicitly mutually inspired each other. Another one consists in clarifying that Cavell’s Wittgenstein inspired Kuhn. And a third one consists in clarifying that Wittgenstein inspired both Kuhn and Cavell and the ways in which he inspired them. This third way is not exclusive of the first two and even contributes to these by rendering explicit their stakes. For at stake is not only the restitution of the truth of an exegetical mediation: that Kuhn’s Wittgenstein cannot be truly understood without accounting for Cavell’s Wittgenstein. Rather the transitive character of the mediation implied by interpretation does not substitute for the intransitive character of a thoroughly philosophical inheritance. It is not the case that because Kuhn was inspired by Cavell who was inspired by Wittgenstein, that Kuhn could be inspired only by Cavell’s Wittgenstein, and not by Wittgenstein. Further, the question is not only philological but philosophical if we take into account the methods and the philosophy of Wittgenstein. To use an image: that a path was indicated by someone to someone else could not have implied that what was indicated by a person to another was oneself; this much was already known to us with the old fable of the moon, the finger and the sage. With this paper I will thus first seek to establish the relevance of the comparison of Cavell’s conception of the relations of arts, works of arts, and artists with Kuhn’s conception of the relations of sciences, scientific successes, and scientific practitioners. Then I will attempt to render explicit the unrestrictive limits of this comparison both to account for the mutual exchanges between Cavell and Kuhn and consider or bring out some symmetries and asymmetries concerning the place of paradigms in sciences and arts.","PeriodicalId":342666,"journal":{"name":"Conversations: The Journal of Cavellian Studies","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Conversations: The Journal of Cavellian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18192/cjcs.vi10.6613","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper proposes an exploration of relationships and exchanges between the philosophies of Cavell and Kuhn by the study of aspects of the philosophy of Wittgenstein. Although the notions of language games and family resemblances used by Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions have been elaborated by Wittgenstein, Cavell’s reading of Wittgenstein inspired that of Kuhn. I will attempt to show that against this background, Cavell’s conception of the relations of arts, works of arts, and artists, can be relevantly compared to Kuhn’s conception of the relations of sciences, scientific successes, and scientific practitioners. Three ways of elucidating the mutual exchanges between Cavell and Kuhn may be distinguished: One consists in clarifying the ways in which Cavell and Kuhn explicitly mutually inspired each other. Another one consists in clarifying that Cavell’s Wittgenstein inspired Kuhn. And a third one consists in clarifying that Wittgenstein inspired both Kuhn and Cavell and the ways in which he inspired them. This third way is not exclusive of the first two and even contributes to these by rendering explicit their stakes. For at stake is not only the restitution of the truth of an exegetical mediation: that Kuhn’s Wittgenstein cannot be truly understood without accounting for Cavell’s Wittgenstein. Rather the transitive character of the mediation implied by interpretation does not substitute for the intransitive character of a thoroughly philosophical inheritance. It is not the case that because Kuhn was inspired by Cavell who was inspired by Wittgenstein, that Kuhn could be inspired only by Cavell’s Wittgenstein, and not by Wittgenstein. Further, the question is not only philological but philosophical if we take into account the methods and the philosophy of Wittgenstein. To use an image: that a path was indicated by someone to someone else could not have implied that what was indicated by a person to another was oneself; this much was already known to us with the old fable of the moon, the finger and the sage. With this paper I will thus first seek to establish the relevance of the comparison of Cavell’s conception of the relations of arts, works of arts, and artists with Kuhn’s conception of the relations of sciences, scientific successes, and scientific practitioners. Then I will attempt to render explicit the unrestrictive limits of this comparison both to account for the mutual exchanges between Cavell and Kuhn and consider or bring out some symmetries and asymmetries concerning the place of paradigms in sciences and arts.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
自主性,构成性,范例,范式
本文通过对维特根斯坦哲学方面的研究,探讨卡维尔与库恩哲学之间的关系与交流。虽然库恩在《科学革命的结构》中使用的语言游戏和家族相似性的概念已经被维特根斯坦阐述过,但卡维尔对维特根斯坦的阅读启发了库恩。我将试图表明,在这种背景下,卡维尔关于艺术、艺术作品和艺术家之间关系的概念,可以与库恩关于科学、科学成就和科学实践者之间关系的概念进行相关的比较。阐明卡维尔和库恩之间相互交流的方式可以区分为三种:一种是阐明卡维尔和库恩明确相互启发的方式。另一个是澄清卡维尔的维特根斯坦启发了库恩。第三点在于澄清维特根斯坦启发了库恩和卡维尔以及他启发他们的方式。第三种方式并不排斥前两种方式,甚至通过明确它们的利害关系来促进前两种方式。因为利害攸关的不仅是训诂调解的真理的恢复:如果不考虑卡维尔的维特根斯坦,就不能真正理解库恩的维特根斯坦。更确切地说,解释所蕴涵的中介性的及物性并不能代替彻底的哲学继承的不及物性。并不是说,库恩受到维特根斯坦启发的卡维尔的启发,库恩只能受到卡维尔的维特根斯坦的启发,而不能受到维特根斯坦的启发。此外,如果我们考虑到维特根斯坦的方法和哲学,这个问题不仅是语言学的,而且是哲学的。用一个形象来说明:一个人指向另一个人的路径并不意味着这个人指向另一个人的就是他自己;我们已经从月亮、手指和圣人的古老寓言中知道了这些。因此,在本文中,我将首先试图建立卡维尔关于艺术、艺术作品和艺术家之间关系的概念与库恩关于科学、科学成功和科学实践者之间关系的概念的比较的相关性。然后,我将试图明确地呈现这种比较的非限制性限制,以解释卡维尔和库恩之间的相互交流,并考虑或提出一些关于范式在科学和艺术中的地位的对称和不对称。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Autonomy, Constitutivity, Exemplars, Paradigms The Question of the New The “New” in Science and Art The Claim of Reason in a Planetary Age From Automatism to Autonomy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1