John McDowell -- Between Platonic and Scientistic Anthropology
The author puts forward a critical evaluation of the philosophical anthropology of American philosopher John McDowell, as set forth in his book Mind & World (1994). The starting point of McDowell's anthropology is the classical tenet that humans are rational animals. According to McDowell,...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Politička misao 2010-01, Vol.47 (2), p.55-66 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | hrv ; eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The author puts forward a critical evaluation of the philosophical anthropology of American philosopher John McDowell, as set forth in his book Mind & World (1994). The starting point of McDowell's anthropology is the classical tenet that humans are rational animals. According to McDowell, humans are animals characterized by a nature & animality "permeated" by rationality, ie., by spontaneity. Humans consist of two components. The first encompasses most of the diversity common to humans & animals, while the second, rationality, ie., spontaneity, is connected with the first component up to a certain age, but it remains extrinsic. McDowell strives to conceive of rationality & spontaneity as natural traits, & he does so by suggesting an expansion of the natural-scientific concept of nature to include the concept of so-called "second nature." While the first nature encompasses our biological foundations, the second nature of humans, according to McDowell, consists of the faculties & qualities which can be related with rationality & spontaneity: the faculties of conceptual or abstract representation, of deliberate action, and, in particular, of responsiveness to reasons. Humans acquire their second nature through "upbringing" & "education." These processes do not add to our believes that he is able to embed rationality into nature (thereby expanding the second nature) with no negation of its character sui generis, & that he is not forced to conclude that its activity as such can be elucidated by the tools of natural sciences. McDowell's line of thought is a theoretically challenging attempt to sidestep the boundaries & avoid the obstacles of Platonic & scientistic anthropology. The author shows that the attempt was unsuccessful after all, since it failed to establish a well-balanced relation between the first & second nature. He concludes that McDowell's conception does not make it possible to reach beyond the Platonic, ie., scientistic anthropology. Adapted from the source document. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0032-3241 |