REVIEW OF SKINNER VS KEAN DEBATE
Keane criticizes that it is possible to recover the intentionality claim of the authors behind the authors for basically two reason:
Kean says that we cannot ignore the psychoanalyst elements, like the subconscious and so on.
And Skinner talks about psychoanalysis also but he dismisses it because, according to him, while explaining an idea one should use terms that are available to the reader
Kean says that language is not a transparent toll to refer to realities but, instead, something which create meanings as well. For so, we got to understand…
Winch says that people have their belief systems, which are different, and each belief systems express itself through a language that, consequently, create a whole world.
Kean point five talks about the parts on which he agrees with Skinner.
Kean criticizes skinner for not being hermeneutics in that particular paper
Habermas, father of hermeneutics, says that any kind of interpretation Is subjective… regarding, both, the subjective of the interpreters and the interpreted.
Criticizes Skinner from inside, showing failures, and outside, as a post-structuralism.
Questions raised on all the texts so far
How can the self understand the other?
What is the relation between language and reality?
How legitimate/feasible is it to offer a critique on different societies?
No comments:
Post a Comment