Radical alterity is just another way of saying "reality" A reply to Eduardo Viveiros de Castro
Radical alterity is just another way of saying "reality" A reply to Eduardo Viveiros de Castro
复制标题
DOI：
10.14318/hau5.2.003
复制
发表时间：
2015-09-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Graeber, David
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Graeber, David
作为对Eduardo Viveiros de Castro对我的论文《恋物癖是建构过程中的神》的批评的回应，本文与人类学的“本体论转向”的支持者进行了批判性的接触。“在其他活动中，我注意到，我自己对马达加斯加狂热爱好者或医学的思考，正是由我的线人对认识论的那种自我意识的思考所告知的，这是人类学家通常忽视的。注意到罗伊Bhaskar的论点，大多数后笛卡尔哲学依赖于“认识论谬误”，我进一步认为，一个现实主义的本体论，结合广泛的理论相对主义，是一个更引人注目的政治立场比“本体论无政府状态”和理论上的不容忍的本体论转向指数。
As a response to Eduardo Viveiros de Castro's critique of my essay "Fetishes are gods in the process of construction," this paper enters into critical engagement with anthropological proponents of what has been called the "ontological turn." Among other engagements, I note that my own reflections on Malagasy fanafody, or medicine, are informed by just the sort of self-conscious reflections my informants make on epistemology, something that anthropologists typically ignore. After making note of the arguments of Roy Bhaskar that most post-Cartesian philosophy rests on an "epistemic fallacy," I further argue that a realist ontology, combined with broad theoretical relativism, is a more compelling political position than the "ontological anarchy" and theoretical intolerance of ontological turn exponents.