Matters of Fact, and the Fact of Matter
Matters of Fact, and the Fact of Matter
复制标题
事实的问题和问题的事实
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
M. Lynch
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Lynch
我在这篇简短评论中的评论重点是 Chris Calvert-Minor (2014) 关于凯伦·巴拉德哲学著作的文章，并且仅与对巴拉德作品的评估间接相关。我对巴拉德的著作了解有限，对尼尔斯·玻尔的著作了解更少。巴拉德在发展她的女权主义认识论时明确借鉴了玻尔的理论著作。巴拉德招募玻尔来支持她的哲学，这给我和其他不熟悉玻尔物理学/哲学的读者带来了两难的境地。据我了解，巴拉德从玻尔那里得到的有关物理现象的一般教训似乎大致符合胡塞尔的现象概念或梅洛-庞蒂对“交织”的解释，但似乎很清楚，玻尔和巴拉德都没有明确地从先验或存在现象学中汲取教训。巴拉德还发展了自己的词汇（用诸如“主体实在论”和“内部行动”等关键术语来表达），并且她提供了对玻尔的女权主义解读，因此在直接接触巴拉德的哲学之前，似乎有必要先了解玻尔、量子物理学和女权主义认识论。我对巴拉德的玻尔现象概念没有特别的疑问，因为它是客观和主观条件之间强加的任何认知“切割”的原始本体论条件，但我不明白它的原创性是什么，也不明白它如何表达女权主义立场。因此，巴拉德或她的众多崇拜者之一很容易将我所说的视为一种肤浅的误解，忽略了玻尔和巴拉德认识论的微妙性和深刻性，并且是错误的。
My remarks in this brief commentary focus on Chris Calvert-Minor’s (2014) article on Karen Barad’s philosophical writings, and are only indirectly relevant to an assessment of Barad’s work. I have limited acquaintance with Barad’s writings, and even less with Nils Bohr’s. Barad explicitly borrows from Bohr’s theoretical writings when developing her version of feminist epistemology. Barad’s recruitment of Bohr to support her philosophy creates a dilemma for me and other readers who are not conversant with Bohr’s physics/philosophy. To my understanding, the general lessons that Barad draws from Bohr about physical phenomena seem roughly in line with Husserl’s conception of phenomena or Merleau-Ponty’s account of ‘‘the intertwining,’’ but it seems clear that neither Bohr nor Barad explicitly draws from transcendental or existential phenomenology. Barad also has developed her own vocabulary (as expressed with key terms such as ‘‘agential realism’’ and ‘‘intra-action’’), and she provides a feminist reading of Bohr, and so it seems necessary to pass through Bohr, quantum physics, and feminist epistemology before engaging directly with Barad’s philosophy. I have no particular problem with Barad’s Bohrian conception of phenomena as being the primordial ontological condition for any epistemic ‘‘cut’’ imposed between objective and subjective conditions, but I do not understand what is original about it or how it expresses a feminist standpoint. Consequently, it would be easy enough for Barad or one of her many admirers to dismiss what I say as a superficial misunderstanding that misses the subtlety and profundity of both Bohr’s and Barad’s epistemologies and is