Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
The author or concept searched is found in the following 7 entries.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Action Systems | Parsons | Habermas IV 322 Action system/Parsons/Habermas: after Parsons got to know Malinowski's Freudian personality theory and cultural anthropology, his theoretical perspective shifted: action systems are no longer built up elementarily from their units, they are the starting point. For Parsons, the starting point is now the concept of culture; the systems of action society and personality are declared as institutional embodiments and motivational anchoring of cultural patterns. Elementary units are no longer units of action, but cultural patterns and symbolic meanings. These form configurations, systems of cultural values and interpretations that can be handed down. >S. Freud. Habermas IV 323 Problem: 1. How should the cultural determination of action systems be thought of? 2. How can the three concepts of order in the cultural, social and personality system be combined with the concept of action from which it could not be built? Habermas IV 326 Ad 1: Solution/Parsons: Value standards are no longer attributed to individual actors as subjective properties; culturally value patterns are introduced from the outset as intersubjective property. However, they are initially only regarded as components of cultural tradition and do not have normative binding force by their very nature. Habermas IV 327 Ad 2: From the conceptual perspective of communication-oriented action, the interpretative appropriation of traditional cultural contents presents itself as the act through which the cultural determination of action takes place. Habermas IV 328 HabermasVsParsons: this way of analysis is blocked by Parsons, because he sees the orientation towards values as an orientation towards objects. >Objects/Parsons. Habermas IV 358 Action System/Society/System/Parsons/Habermas: Parsons defined society as an action system from the mid-sixties of the 20th century, whereby culture and language give way to constitutive provisions instead of value-oriented purposive action. (1) In systems of action, the traditional cultural patterns penetrate through the medium of language with the genetically propagated organic equipment of the individual members of society. Collectives, which are composed of socialized individuals, are the carriers of the systems of action. Moreover, each action system is a zone of interaction and mutual penetration of four subsystems: Culture, society, personality and organism. Each of these subsystems is specialized in a basic function. (2) Habermas IV 359 Subsystems: since they have a relative autonomy, they are in contingent relationships with each other. However, these are determined to a certain extent by their membership of the common system of action. The subsystems form environments for each other. Control: for superior control of these basic functions, Parsons postulates a control hierarchy. (3) Habermas IV 381 At the end of his complex path of thought, Parsons is confronted with the epistemological model of the recognizing subject based on Kant for the action system. HabermasVsParsons: for the purposes of the foundation of social theory, however, the communication-theoretical model of the subject with its ability to speak and act is better suited than the epistemological one. 1. T. Parsons, Societies, Englewood Cliffs, 1966, p. 5. 2. Ibid. p. 7. 3. Ibid. p. 28 |
ParCh I Ch. Parsons Philosophy of Mathematics in the Twentieth Century: Selected Essays Cambridge 2014 ParTa I T. Parsons The Structure of Social Action, Vol. 1 1967 ParTe I Ter. Parsons Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics 2000 Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
| Cultural Tradition | Parsons | Habermas IV 322 Cultural Tradition/Parsons/Habermas: after Parsons got to know Malinowski's Freudian personality theory and cultural anthropology, his theoretical perspective shifted: systems of action are no longer built up elementarily from their units, they are the starting point. For Parsons, the starting point is now the concept of culture; the systems of action society and personality are declared as institutional embodiments and motivational anchoring of cultural patterns. Elementary units are no longer units of action, but cultural patterns and symbolic meanings. These form configurations, systems of cultural values and interpretations that can be handed down. Habermas IV 323 The part of cultural tradition that is relevant for the constitution of systems of action is the pattern of value. These are processed through internalisation into personal motives or character-forming dispositions for action. Then action systems are complementary channels through which cultural values are translated into motivated actions.(1) >Values, >Action Systems. Problem: 1. How should the cultural determination of systems of action be thought of? 2. How can the three concepts of order in the cultural, social and personality system be combined with the concept of action from which it could not be built? Habermas IV 326 Ad 1: Solution/Parsons: Value standards are no longer attributed to individual actors as subjective properties; cultural value patterns are introduced from the outset as intersubjective property. However, they are initially only regarded as components of cultural tradition and do not have normative binding force by their very nature. Habermas IV 327 Ad 2: From the conceptual perspective of communication-oriented action, the interpretative appropriation of traditional cultural contents presents itself as the act through which the cultural determination of action takes place. >Action theory, >Communicative action. Habermas IV 328 HabermasVsParsons: this way of analysis is blocked by Parsons, because he sees the orientation to values as an orientation to objects. >Objects/Parsons. 1.Talcott Parsons, Toward a General Theory of Action, NY 1951, S. 54. |
ParCh I Ch. Parsons Philosophy of Mathematics in the Twentieth Century: Selected Essays Cambridge 2014 ParTa I T. Parsons The Structure of Social Action, Vol. 1 1967 ParTe I Ter. Parsons Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics 2000 Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
| Dark Triad Traits | Paulhus | Corr II 246 Dark Triad Traits/Personality Traits/Paulhus/Williams/Zeigler-Hill/Marcus: Paulhus and Williams (2002)(1) examined the possibility that narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism constituted a Dark Triad of personality traits. >Narcissism, >Psychopathy, >Machiavellianism, >Personality traits. The measures of narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism had moderate correlations with each other in this sample showing that an individual who reported a high score for one of these traits was also likely to report relatively high scores for the other traits. (…) the Dark Triad personality traits had similar negative associations with the personality trait of agreeableness but often had divergent associations with the personality trait of neuroticism (…). >Neuroticism. The conclusion reached by Paulhus and Williams (2002)(1) was that the Dark Triad personality traits were distinct constructs that had important similarities to each other but were far from interchangeable. II 251 To develop a more complete understanding of the Dark Triad traits, it may be helpful to consider their potential evolutionary origins. The idea underlying (…) evolutionary perspectives is that the self-serving, manipulative and exploitative strategies that characterize the Dark Triad traits may be adaptive under certain conditions. >Evolutionary psychology. One of the earliest scholars to advocate for an evolutionary perspective for any of the Dark Triad traits was Mealey (1995)(2), who suggested that psychopathy may be the expression of a frequency-dependent life strategy that is selected in response to varying environmental circumstances. Another approach to understanding the origins of the Dark Triad traits has been to consider their links with life II 252 history strategies which concern how individuals resolve the various trade-offs that must be made due to time and energy limitations (e.g., Kaplan & Gangestad, 2005)(3). These trade-offs focus on: (1) somatic effort vs. reproductive effort; (2) parental effort vs. mating effort; (3) quality of offspring vs. quantity of offspring; and (4) future reproduction vs. present reproduction. This perspective argues that individuals differ along a continuum with regard to the reproductive strategies they employ to resolve these trade-offs (e.g., Buss, 2009)(4). >D.M. Buss. II 253 [Various] results suggest the possibility that the Dark Triad traits may represent specialized adaptations that allow individuals to exploit particular niches within society such as those concerning opportunistic mating (e.g., Furnham et al., 2013)(5). The Dark Triad traits tend to have similar — but not identical — associations with a range of aversive outcomes (…). Although many of the results concerning the Dark Triad provide an unpleasant view of these traits, other studies reveal that the Dark Triad traits may be beneficial or at least neutral in certain areas of life. For example, these traits may be helpful for individuals pursuing leader ship positions especially when they are combined with factors such as intelligence and physical attractiveness (Furnham, 2010)(6) (…). II 255 VsDark Triad Traits: Other than perhaps following the ‘rule of three’ (Dundes, 1968)(7), there is no intrinsic reason why the set of dark personality traits should be limited to a triad. In fact, Chabrol, Van Leeuwen, Rodgers and Séjourné (2009)(8) have provided compelling evidence that sadism belongs with these other traits, creating a ‘Dark Tetrad’. We have argued that there are numerous additional dark traits that merit study and that could be included in the types of studies that have examined the Dark Triad (e.g., Marcus & Zeigler-Hill, 2015(9); Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016(10)). 1. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556—563. 2. Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 5 23—599. 3. Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 4. Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359—366. 5. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199—2 16. 6. Furnham, A. (2010). The elephant in the boardroom: The causes of leadership derailment. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 7. Dundes, A. (1968). The number three in American culture. In A. Dundes (Ed.), Every man his way: Readings in cultural anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice—Hall. 8. Chabrol, H., Van Leeuwen, N., Rodgers, R., & Séjourné, N. (2009). Contributions of psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic personality traits to juvenile delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 734—73 9. 9. Marcus, D. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). A big tent of dark personality traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9,434—446. 10. Zeigler-Hill, V., & Marcus, D. K. (2016). A bright future for dark personality features? In V. Zeigler-Hill & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality: Science and practice in social, personality, and clinical psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zeigler-Hill, Virgil; Marcus, David K.: “The Dark Side of Personality Revisiting Paulhus and Williams (2002)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 245-262. |
Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Dark Triad Traits | Williams | Corr II 246 Dark Triad Traits/Personality Traits/Paulhus/Williams/Zeigler-Hill/Marcus: Paulhus and Williams (2002)(1) examined the possibility that narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism constituted a Dark Triad of personality traits. >Narcissism, >Psychopathy, >Machiavellianism, >Personality traits. The measures of narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism had moderate correlations with each other in this sample showing that an individual who reported a high score for one of these traits was also likely to report relatively high scores for the other traits. (…) the Dark Triad personality traits had similar negative associations with the personality trait of agreeableness but often had divergent associations with the personality trait of neuroticism (…). >Neuroticism. The conclusion reached by Paulhus and Williams (2002)(1) was that the Dark Triad personality traits were distinct constructs that had important similarities to each other but were far from interchangeable. II 251 To develop a more complete understanding of the Dark Triad traits, it may be helpful to consider their potential evolutionary origins. The idea underlying (…) evolutionary perspectives is that the self-serving, manipulative and exploitative strategies that characterize the Dark Triad traits may be adaptive under certain conditions. >Evolutionary psychology. One of the earliest scholars to advocate for an evolutionary perspective for any of the Dark Triad traits was Mealey (1995)(2), who suggested that psychopathy may be the expression of a frequency-dependent life strategy that is selected in response to varying environmental circumstances. Another approach to understanding the origins of the Dark Triad traits has been to consider their links with life II 252 history strategies which concern how individuals resolve the various trade-offs that must be made due to time and energy limitations (e.g., Kaplan & Gangestad, 2005)(3). These trade-offs focus on: (1) somatic effort vs. reproductive effort; (2) parental effort vs. mating effort; (3) quality of offspring vs. quantity of offspring; and (4) future reproduction vs. present reproduction. This perspective argues that individuals differ along a continuum with regard to the reproductive strategies they employ to resolve these trade-offs (e.g., Buss, 2009)(4). >D.M. Buss. II 253 [Various] results suggest the possibility that the Dark Triad traits may represent specialized adaptations that allow individuals to exploit particular niches within society such as those concerning opportunistic mating (e.g., Furnham et al., 2013)(5). The Dark Triad traits tend to have similar — but not identical — associations with a range of aversive outcomes (…). Although many of the results concerning the Dark Triad provide an unpleasant view of these traits, other studies reveal that the Dark Triad traits may be beneficial or at least neutral in certain areas of life. For example, these traits may be helpful for individuals pursuing leader ship positions especially when they are combined with factors such as intelligence and physical attractiveness (Furnham, 2010)(6) (…). II 255 VsDark Triad Traits: Other than perhaps following the ‘rule of three’ (Dundes, 1968)(7), there is no intrinsic reason why the set of dark personality traits should be limited to a triad. In fact, Chabrol, Van Leeuwen, Rodgers and Séjourné (2009)(8) have provided compelling evidence that sadism belongs with these other traits, creating a ‘Dark Tetrad’. We have argued that there are numerous additional dark traits that merit study and that could be included in the types of studies that have examined the Dark Triad (e.g., Marcus & Zeigler-Hill, 2015(9); Zeigler-Hill & Marcus, 2016(10)). >Personality/Traits. 1. Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556—563. 2. Mealey, L. (1995). The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 18, 5 23—599. 3. Kaplan, H. S., & Gangestad, S. W. (2005). Life history theory and evolutionary psychology. In D. M. Buss (Ed.), The handbook of evolutionary psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 4. Buss, D. M. (2009). How can evolutionary psychology successfully explain personality and individual differences? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4, 359—366. 5. Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad of personality: A 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 199—2 16. 6. Furnham, A. (2010). The elephant in the boardroom: The causes of leadership derailment. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 7. Dundes, A. (1968). The number three in American culture. In A. Dundes (Ed.), Every man his way: Readings in cultural anthropology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice—Hall. 8. Chabrol, H., Van Leeuwen, N., Rodgers, R., & Séjourné, N. (2009). Contributions of psychopathic, narcissistic, Machiavellian, and sadistic personality traits to juvenile delinquency. Personality and Individual Differences, 47, 734—73 9. 9. Marcus, D. K., & Zeigler-Hill, V. (2015). A big tent of dark personality traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9,434—446. 10. Zeigler-Hill, V., & Marcus, D. K. (2016). A bright future for dark personality features? In V. Zeigler-Hill & D. K. Marcus (Eds.), The dark side of personality: Science and practice in social, personality, and clinical psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Zeigler-Hill, Virgil; Marcus, David K.: “The Dark Side of Personality Revisiting Paulhus and Williams (2002)”, In: Philip J. Corr (Ed.) 2018. Personality and Individual Differences. Revisiting the classical studies. Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne: Sage, pp. 245-262. |
WilliamsB I Bernard Williams Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy London 2011 WilliamsM I Michael Williams Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology Oxford 2001 WilliamsM II Michael Williams "Do We (Epistemologists) Need A Theory of Truth?", Philosophical Topics, 14 (1986) pp. 223-42 In Theories of Truth, Paul Horwich Aldershot 1994 Corr I Philip J. Corr Gerald Matthews The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology New York 2009 Corr II Philip J. Corr (Ed.) Personality and Individual Differences - Revisiting the classical studies Singapore, Washington DC, Melbourne 2018 |
| Death | Condorcet | Habermas III 214 Death/Condorcet/Habermas: Condorcet (1795)(1) expects the hygienic and medical overcoming of misery and illness; he believes that "a time must come when death will only be the result of extraordinary circumstances". (1) Habermas: in other words: Condorcet believes in eternal life before death. This concept is representative of the historical philosophical thinking of the 18th century. However, it is precisely the radicalism that makes the fractures of historical philosophical thought come to the fore. HabermasVsCondorcet: For its linear concept of progress, Condorcet must presuppose that 1st the history of physics and the sciences oriented on its model can be reconstructed as a continuous path of development; Habermas III 215 2nd that all problems to which religious and philosophical teachings have so far provided answers can either be translated into problems that can be scientifically worked on or seen through as apparent problems. 3rd Condorcet presupposes the idea of a universal reason, which he himself cannot overlook as a child of the 18th century. VsCondorcet: This idea is first questioned by the Historical School and later by cultural anthropology. >Progress, >Technology, >Enlightenment, >Cultural anthropology. 1. Condorcet, Entwurf einer historischen Darstellung der Fortschritte des menschlichen Geistes, (Ed.) W. Alff, Frankfurt, 1963, p. 383. |
Condo I N. de Condorcet Tableau historique des progrès de l’ esprit humain Paris 2004 Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
| Language | Parsons | Habermas IV 388 Language/Parsons/System Theory/Habermas: Parsons initially adopted the concept of language in the sense of a medium used by cultural anthropology, which enables intersubjectivity and carries the consensus of values relevant to normative orders. With this, he explained what it means that actors share value orientations. These participations served as a model for the common possession of cultural values and for the collective commitment to a normative order.(1) Habermas IV 389 Problem: if money and power as control media are to represent a generalization of language, the culturalist concept of language is inadequate: 1. It is then no longer about the kind of common ground that represents the inter-subjectivity of linguistic communication, but rather about a structure of code and message. 2. The question of systematic localisation of linguistic communication is not solved. >Control media, >Communication media. For Parsons, language initially seemed to belong to the cultural system: as the medium through which traditions propagate. However, the cross-system mechanisms of institutionalisation and internalisation had already suggested the question of whether language is not generally central to the action system and must be analysed at the same level as the concept of action. IV 390 Two strategies are possible: A. Analysis of language at the level of communicative action: this can be linked to linguistics and language philosophy. >Communicative action. However, this is not possible if you follow the second strategy: B. One undermines the level of language and action theory investigations and analyses the mechanism of linguistic communication only from the functionalist point of view of system formation. Luhmann follows this strategy: one would not construct a theory of the action system from an analysis of action with the addition of general system-theoretical aspects...; one would use general system-theoretical construction considerations to derive from them how...systems constitute actions.(2) >Action Theory. 1. T. Parsons, Social Systems and the Evolution of Action Theory, NY 1977, S.168 2. N. Luhmann, Handlungstheorie und Systemtheorie, Ms Bielefeld 1977. |
ParCh I Ch. Parsons Philosophy of Mathematics in the Twentieth Century: Selected Essays Cambridge 2014 ParTa I T. Parsons The Structure of Social Action, Vol. 1 1967 ParTe I Ter. Parsons Indeterminate Identity: Metaphysics and Semantics 2000 Ha I J. Habermas Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne Frankfurt 1988 Ha III Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. I Frankfurt/M. 1981 Ha IV Jürgen Habermas Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns Bd. II Frankfurt/M. 1981 |
| Political Language | Freeden | Gaus I 14 Political Language/Freeden: [Students of ideology] have noted how new readings of wellestablished political terms such as ‘natural rights’ have shifted alongside a transformed understanding of what (if anything!) is natural in human social conduct. While this may allow the emergence of the unpredictable, the appreciation of historical development has also alerted students of ideology to the diachronic constraints on ideologies, channelling some ideological change into recognizably stable patterns. Conceptual history: The school of conceptual history (Koselleck, 1985(1); Richter, 1995(2)) has been influential in identifying key historical periods when a struggle over the ‘correct’ political and social concepts occurs, and in reconstructing the meaning of such concepts over time. In parallel John Pocock (1972)(3) has investigated the ways in which political languages have changed over time. Cultural Anthropology: Cultural anthropologists, on their part, have highlighted the symbolic and often non-verbal nature of ideologies, in addition to portraying them as mapping devices that impose integrated fields of meaning on political occurrences (Geertz, 1964)(4). Ideologies were now regarded as contained in practices and in cultural symbols as well as in oral and written texts, thus extending the disciplinary boundaries from which analytical methodologies for their investigation could be extrapolated. Poststructuralism: Finally, poststructural philosophers have regarded ideology as a modernist expedient that offers a narrative necessary to preserving the social order, itself often considered to be a fiction or a social imaginary. >Ideology/Freeden. 1. K Koselleck, R. 1985. Futures Past. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2. Richter, M. 1995. A History of Political and Social Concepts. New York: Oxford University Press. 3. Pocock, J. G. A. 1972. Politics, Language and Time. London: Methuen. 4. Geertz, C. (1964) ‘Ideology as a cultural system’. In D. E. Apter, ed., Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free. Freeden, M. 2004. „Ideology, Political Theory and Political Philosophy“. In: Gaus, Gerald F. 2004. Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications. |
Gaus I Gerald F. Gaus Chandran Kukathas Handbook of Political Theory London 2004 |
| |||
No results. Please choose an author or concept or try a different keyword-search.