Understanding anthropologists

Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 25 (2):199 – 216 (1982)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

In this paper I show how to treat problems in the philosophy of the social sciences, in particular anthropology, without the need to settle questions in the theory of meaning about realism and anti?realism. In doing this, I show how it is possible, contrary to received opinion, to ward off conceptual relativism without adoption of realist semantics. The argument involves sketching the feasibility of a viable non?realist concept of objectivity. Having distinguished the required notion of objectivity, I then bring this to bear on issues that have dominated the philosophy of anthropology in recent years: the translatability of ritual beliefs; the adequacy of symbolist anthropology; the concept of rationality. I offer a new way of handling these issues which supports an anti?realist, but intellectualist, account of ritual belief

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,503

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-03-05

Downloads
25 (#627,632)

6 months
4 (#779,417)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

Social science or dialogues of the deaf?Michael Luntley - 1985 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 28 (1-4):123-148.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Idea of a Social Science.Peter Winch - 1959 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 14 (2):247-248.
Rationality.Bryan Wilson (ed.) - 1970 - Wiley-Blackwell.
Rethinking Symbolism.Dan Sperber & Alice L. Morton - 1977 - Philosophy and Rhetoric 10 (4):281-282.
Social Theory as Science.M. H. Weston, John Urry & Russell Keat - 1976 - Philosophical Quarterly 26 (104):288.

View all 13 references / Add more references