The Legacy of Structuralism: From Its Dogmas to Methodological Pluralism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31649/sent44.02.035Keywords:
Brazilian philosophy, structural method, Oswaldo Porchat, Victor Goldschmidt, Martial Gueroult, rules, history of philosophyAbstract
There is a widespread idea that the Philosophy Department at University of São Paulo, has been structuralist since the 1960s. In my opinion, this is a myth, the result of a misunderstanding of what structuralism is. I distinguish between three parts of structuralism: its conception of philosophy, its dogmas and its method for doing history of philosophy. I then discuss, for each of these parts, in what sense structuralism may still have left deep traces, for better or worse, in the Philosophy Department at University of São Paulo. Next, I point out what seems to me to be an ambiguity in the structuralist idea of method: one should distinguish between the philosopher’s method and the method of the structuralist historian of philosophy. Concerning the first, while structuralism offers an argument against all dogmatic methods, I propose the skeptical method as the best one. Finally, I argue that the structuralist rules for doing history of philosophy are good ones, but in many cases insufficient. Thereby I propose a methodological pluralism.
References
Baynes, K., Bohman, J., & McCarthy, T. (Eds.). (1987). After philosophy: end or transformation? Cambridge: MIT Press.
Brunschwig, J. (2009). Estudos e exercícios de filosofia grega. (C. W. Veloso, Ed.). São Paulo; Rio de Janeiro: Edições Loyola & Editora PUC-Rio.
Burnyeat, M. (1990). The Theaetetus of Plato. (M. J. Levett, Trans.). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Goldschmidt, V. (1970). Tempo lógico e tempo histórico na interpretação dos sistemas filosóficos. In V. Goldschmidt, A religião de Platão (pp. 139-147). (O. Porchat, I. Porchat, Trans.). São Paulo: DIFEL.
Goldschmidt, V. (2000). Le système stoïcien et l’idée de temps. Paris: Vrin.
Gueroult, M. (1955-1959). Malebranche: la vision en Dieu et les cinq abîmes de la providence (Vols. 1-3). Paris: Aubier.
Gueroult, M. (1956). Berkeley: quatre études sur la perception et Dieu (Vols. 1-3). Paris: Aubier.
Gueroult, M. (1968). Descartes selon l’ordre des raisons (Vols. 1-2). Paris: Aubier.
Gueroult, M. (2015). O método em história da filosofia. Sképsis, 12, 159-165.
Hadot, P. (2002). Exercices spirituels et philosophie antique. Paris: Albin Michel.
Linàs Begon, J. L. (2023). Commentaire. In M. de Montaigne “De l’institution des enfans” Essais, I, 26. Paris: Classiques Garnier.
Moura, C. A. R. (2001). Racionalidade e crise: estudos de história da filosofia moderna e contemporânea. São Paulo; Curitiba: Discurso Editorial & Editora UFPR.
Perona, B. (2019). Commentaire. In M. de Montaigne, De la phisionomie. Essais, III, 12. Paris: Classiques Garnier.
Porchat, O. (1970). Prefácio introdutório. In V. Goldschmidt, A religião de Platão (pp. 5-10). São Paulo: DIFEL.
Porchat, O. (2001). Ciência e dialética em Aristóteles. São Paulo: Editora da Unesp.
Porchat, O. (2005). Bate-papo com estudantes sobre o estudo da filosofia na universidade brasileira. In S. F. Waldomiro, O ceticismo e a possibilidade da filosofia (pp. 235-266). Ijuí: Editora Unijuí.
Porchat, O. (2007). Rumo ao ceticismo. São Paulo: Editora Unesp.
Skinner, Q. (2002). Visions of politics: regarding method (Vol. 1). Cambridge: Cambridge UP. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511790812
Smith, P. (2000). Ceticismo filosófico. São Paulo; Curitiba: EPU & Editora da UFPR.
Smith, P. (2005). Do começo da filosofia e outros ensaios. São Paulo: Discurso Editorial.
Smith, P. (2015). O método cético de oposição na filosofia moderna. São Paulo: Alameda Editorial.
Smith, P. (2017). Uma visão cética do mundo: Porchat e a filosofia. São Paulo: Editora Unesp.
Smith, P. (2022). Sextus Empiricus’ neo-Pyrrhonism: skepticism as a rationally ordered experience. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94518-3
Strawson, P. (2019). The bounds of sense: an essay on Kant’s Critique of pure reason. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429447075
Downloads
-
PDF
Downloads: 21
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
- Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
.jpg){kind=logo}
.png){kind=logo}
