CONTEXTUALISM AND INTERDISCIPLINARITY. A DISCUSSION

Publication Type:

Language:

Author(s): 
Ilya Kasavin
Institute of Philosophy, Russian Academy of Sciences
Tom Rockmore
Duquesne University
Evgeny Blinov
University of Toulouse 2
Issue number: 
No. 3 (Vol. 37)
Pages: 
57-75
Abstract: 

The discussion is devoted to the notion of context and its use in connection to the notion of interdisciplinarity. These two notions are claimed to be crucial for understanding how “naturalization of social epistemology” can be possible and whether it can be exhausted by an interpretation of knowledge in social context and whether it has its own philosophical importance. These questions were initially raised in the works of I.Kasavin.

Keywords: 
social epistemology, contextualism, knowledge, interdisciplinarity
References: 

Ademollo, Francesco. The Cratylus of Plato: A Commentary, Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Augustine, The City of God against the Pagans, edited and translated by R.W. Dyson, Cambridge: Cambridge, University Press, 1998.

Barnes B., Bloor D. “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge”. M. Hollis, S. Lukes (eds.). Rationality and relativism. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1982.

Bloor D. Wittgenstein: A Social Theory of Knowledge. Macmillan and Columbia, 1983.

Brodsky J. To Urania: Poems. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1992.

Goldman A. Knowledge in a Social World. Clarendon Press, Oxford, N.Y., 2003.

Gutting G. What Philosophers Know: Case Studies in Recent Analytic Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Kant  I. Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Kant I. Political Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

Kasavin I. “A Further Reply to Rockmore”. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (5) 12–14, 2013.

Kasavin I. “Reply to Rockmore”. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (2): 26–29, 2013.

Kasavin I. “To What Extent Could Social Epistemology Accept the Naturalistic Motto?” Social Epistemology Volume 26, Issue 3–4, 2012.

Kasavin I. “To What Extent Could Social Epistemology Accept the Naturalistic Motto?” Social Epistemology 26 (3–4): 351–364, 2012.

Kripke S. 1980. Naming and Necessity, Boston: Harvard University Press, 2013.

Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970, pp. 118–122.

Latour B. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. London, Cambridge Mst: 2004.

Latour B. Politics of Nature: How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy. London, Cambridge Mst: 2004.

Quine W. “Epistemology Naturalized,” In W.V.O. Quine. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.

Rockmore T. “Further reply to Kasavin: Context, Meaning and Truth.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (3): 22–24, 2013.

Rockmore T. “Kasavin on Social Epistemology and Naturalism: A Critical Reply.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 2 (2): 8–11, 2013.

Full Text: