The aim of this paper is to investigate how we can reunite social philosophy and philosophy of science to address problems in science and technology. First, referring to Don Howard?s, George Reisch?s, and Philip Mirowski?s works, I shall briefly explain how philosophy of science was depoliticised during the cold war. Second, I shall examine Steve Fuller?s criticism of Thomas Kuhn. Third, I shall scrutinise Philip Kitcher?s view of well-ordered science. Fourth, I shall emphasise the importance of autonomy and argue that (...) philosophy of science needs to cultivate a critical attitude towards authority. Fifth, drawing upon Ian Jarvie?s social reading of Karl Popper, I shall argue that Popper?s philosophy can be a model for reuniting social philosophy and philosophy of science. (shrink)

Kei Yoshida critically assesses five different theoretical approaches to cultural interpretivism and conclusions on rationality. This book reveals the need for a cogent solution to the problem of rationality and urges social scientists to interpret symbolic systems' or agents’ intentions as well as explain the consequences of human actions.

This paper will defend scientific study of the social by scrutinizing Clifford Geertz's interpretive anthropology, and evolutionary psychologists' criticism of it. I shall critically examine Geertz's identification of anthropology with literary criticism, his assumption that a science of society is possible only on a positivist model, his view of the relation between culture and mind, and his anti anti-relativism. Then I shall discuss evolutionary psychologists' criticism of Geertz's view as an exemplar of the so-called "Standard Social Science Model." Finally, I (...) shall claim that both Geertz and evolutionary psychologists misunderstand the aim of the social sciences, which is to explain the unintended consequences of human actions in institutional contexts. Key Words: Clifford Geertz • evolutionary psychology • interpretive anthropology • positivism • Standard Social Science Model (SSSM). (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Kierkegaard Studies Yearbook Jahrgang: 20 Heft: 1 Seiten: 279-300.

Søren Aabye Kierkegaard’s thought has often been regarded as a philosophy of inwardness, especially within the German-speaking world. Theodor W. Adorno takes an ambivalent attitude toward this view: He criticizes Kierkegaard’s conception of subjectivity as ‘objectless inwardness’, while pointing to its potential for self-reflection that enables the subject to recognize its relationship to the outside world. Beginning from this ambivalent interpretation, this study aims to read Kierkegaard against and with Adorno. First, it clarifies that Kierkegaard does not remain in a (...) closed ‘objectless’ conception of inwardness. Second, it explores how Kierkegaard conceives of inward self-reflection on remorse for sin, which is brought about through the ‘other’ and makes the subject confront its own reality. Thus, Kierkegaard’s concept of inwardness not only overcomes its objectlessness, but also implies a subjective self-reflection through the ‘other’, which can lead to social critique. (shrink)

The term ‘intersectionality’ recognises the need for a ‘holistic approach’ in the determination of the right to be free from discrimination and violence. While the European Court of Human Rights has never expressly used the term, this article argues that the recent case of B.S. v Spain provides an example of a more robust use of Article 14 of the convention taking into account the real life experiences of those facing intersectional discrimination. The decision recognising the special vulnerability of a (...) migrant, female sex worker is therefore both welcome and necessary. (shrink)

In his book, The New Sociological Imagination, Steve Fuller criticizes what he calls “bioliberalism.” According to him, the social sciences are challenged on two sides: humanistic and biological. In particular, Fuller finds the biological challenge serious. Fuller tries to reinvent sociology as a socialist project to counterattack bioliberalism as the biggest threat to the social sciences. First, the author will examine Fuller's argument against bioliberalism, referring to the so-called “liberal eugenics.” Then the author will criticize him. By reinventing sociology as (...) a socialist project, Fuller seems to ignore the relation between value-freedom and education. One of the reasons Max Weber argued for value-freedom was to prevent sociology teachers from imposing their particular views on their students. We must consider this problem of teaching undergraduates sociology and other subjects in a better way if we are to have better social institutions. (shrink)