Gay Cruising Areas In Bx

Fear of knowledge

N ous savons d'où nous venons. Nous sommes les descendants du peuple du buffle. Ils sont venus de l'intérieur de la terre après que des esprits surnaturels aient préparé ce monde pour que les humains y vivent. Si les non-Indiens choisis de croire qu'ils ont évolué d'un singe, qu'il en soi ainsi.

Sebastien LeBeau, officiel Cheyenne River Sioux, Lakota, Dakota du Sud.

Est-ce que chacun a sa vérité ? Est-il correct de dire qu'il y a plusieurs façons de connaitre le monde, que toutes ses façons sont valides et que la science n'est qu'une d'entres-elles ? 

L'argument The most commonly cited to refute relativism suggests that it contradicts itself, he refutes himself, because everything is relative''statement''is classified either as an assertion, either as an absolute statement . If it is relative, it means that the argument''''is all relative .... on him too. If cons, the assertion is an absolute, it shows that not everything is relative, since this argument is presented as an absolute.

In 130 pages, Boghossian's book destroys the philosophical relativism and constructivism.

my

Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism constructivism and is available in French under the title Fear of Knowledge: On relativism and constructivism of knowledge (Agone Edition).
Presentation Editor

Constructivism is liberating when he reveals the contingency of social practices mistakenly regarded as based in nature. But he errs when he aspires to become a general theory of truth and knowledge, where they do more than express the needs and interests of a society. Why so many people are they tempted by this application generalized social constructivism? It is gained by this enormous social contingency can be legitimized only by rejecting all know the moment we do not share these values. The ideas of constructivism of knowledge are closely linked to progressive movements such as postcolonialism and multicuralisme: they provide weapons to protect crops philosophical oppressed. But even viewed from a strictly political point, it's not very wise. For if the powerful can not criticize the oppressed because the categories of knowledge are inevitably linked to particular perspectives, it also follows that the oppressed can not criticize the powerful. That threatens to affect deeply conservative .

This book clearly and simply rejects the arguments that are the foundation of postmodern thought: we have no serious reason to believe that our ordinary concepts of truth, knowledge and objectivity would now be disqualified, and should be abandoned. It is supplemented by a preface which highlights the issues and schedules are discussed where the ideas of Bruno Latour, Isabelle Stengers and Michel Foucault on this issue. Paul Boghossian teaches la philosophie à New York University.