Social kind realism as relative frame manipulability

IF 1.1 1区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES Pub Date : 2024-06-13 DOI:10.1007/s11098-024-02164-0
Yorgos Karagiannopoulos, Alexios Stamatiadis-Bréhier
{"title":"Social kind realism as relative frame manipulability","authors":"Yorgos Karagiannopoulos, Alexios Stamatiadis-Bréhier","doi":"10.1007/s11098-024-02164-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this paper we introduce the view that realism about a social kind K entails that the grounding conditions of K are difficult (or impossible) to manipulate. In other words, we define social kind realism in terms of relative frame manipulability (RFM). In articulating our view, we utilize theoretical resources from Epstein’s (Epstein, <i>The ant trap: Rebuilding the foundations of the Social Sciences</i>. Oxford University Press, 2015) grounding/anchoring model and causal interventionism. After comparing our view with causal and principle-based (Tahko, <i>Synthese</i> 200(2):1–23, 2022) proposals, we motivate RFM by showing that it accommodates important desiderata about the social landscape (such as recognizing the context-relativity of social properties and the emancipatory dimension of social practice). Finally, we consider three objections. First, we tackle frame-necessitarianism (FN), the view that social kind frames are metaphysically necessary (and thus unmanipulable). Secondly, we engage with what Epstein (Epstein, <i>Philosophy and Phenomenological Research</i>, 99(3):768–781 2019a) calls UNIVERSALITY (the view that social kinds can hold in the absence of anchors) and we argue that it should also be resisted. Finally, we tackle a recent objection from Mason’s (Mason, <i>Philosophical Studies</i>, 178(12):3975–3994) essentialism about social kinds.</p>","PeriodicalId":48305,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-024-02164-0","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this paper we introduce the view that realism about a social kind K entails that the grounding conditions of K are difficult (or impossible) to manipulate. In other words, we define social kind realism in terms of relative frame manipulability (RFM). In articulating our view, we utilize theoretical resources from Epstein’s (Epstein, The ant trap: Rebuilding the foundations of the Social Sciences. Oxford University Press, 2015) grounding/anchoring model and causal interventionism. After comparing our view with causal and principle-based (Tahko, Synthese 200(2):1–23, 2022) proposals, we motivate RFM by showing that it accommodates important desiderata about the social landscape (such as recognizing the context-relativity of social properties and the emancipatory dimension of social practice). Finally, we consider three objections. First, we tackle frame-necessitarianism (FN), the view that social kind frames are metaphysically necessary (and thus unmanipulable). Secondly, we engage with what Epstein (Epstein, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 99(3):768–781 2019a) calls UNIVERSALITY (the view that social kinds can hold in the absence of anchors) and we argue that it should also be resisted. Finally, we tackle a recent objection from Mason’s (Mason, Philosophical Studies, 178(12):3975–3994) essentialism about social kinds.

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
作为相对框架可操作性的社会类现实主义
在本文中,我们提出了这样一种观点,即关于社会类型 K 的现实主义意味着 K 的基础条件难以(或不可能)操纵。换句话说,我们用相对框架可操纵性(RFM)来定义社会类型现实主义。在阐述我们的观点时,我们利用了爱泼斯坦(Epstein, The ant trap:牛津大学出版社,2015 年)的理论资源。牛津大学出版社,2015 年)的基础/锚定模型和因果干预主义。在将我们的观点与因果论和原则论(Tahko,Synthese 200(2):1-23,2022)的建议进行比较之后,我们通过证明RFM容纳了关于社会景观的重要理想(如承认社会属性的语境相关性和社会实践的解放维度),来激励RFM。最后,我们考虑了三种反对意见。首先,我们讨论了框架必要论(FN),即认为社会种类框架在形而上学上是必要的(因而是不可操纵的)。其次,我们讨论了爱泼斯坦(Epstein,Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,99(3):768-781 2019a)所谓的 "普遍性"(UNIVERSALITY,即社会种类在没有锚的情况下也能成立的观点),我们认为也应该抵制这种观点。最后,我们讨论了梅森(Mason,《哲学研究》,178(12):3975-3994)最近提出的关于社会类型的本质主义的反对意见。
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
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES
PHILOSOPHICAL STUDIES PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Philosophical Studies was founded in 1950 by Herbert Feigl and Wilfrid Sellars to provide a periodical dedicated to work in analytic philosophy. The journal remains devoted to the publication of papers in exclusively analytic philosophy. Papers applying formal techniques to philosophical problems are welcome. The principal aim is to publish articles that are models of clarity and precision in dealing with significant philosophical issues. It is intended that readers of the journal will be kept abreast of the central issues and problems of contemporary analytic philosophy. Double-blind review procedure The journal follows a double-blind reviewing procedure. Authors are therefore requested to place their name and affiliation on a separate page. Self-identifying citations and references in the article text should either be avoided or left blank when manuscripts are first submitted. Authors are responsible for reinserting self-identifying citations and references when manuscripts are prepared for final submission.
期刊最新文献
Incommensurability and democratic deliberation in bioethics What Is Rational Sentimentalism? Metaphor and ambiguity Beyond Preferences in AI Alignment What is reasonable doubt? For philosophical studies special issue on Sosa’s ‘epistemic explanations’
×
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