Abstract
This paper provides a sketch of a fresh conception of the “metaphysics” of culture and a sense of its conceptual power and advantages, based on a post-Darwinian account of the artifactual, hybrid nature of a person, chiefly in terms of (what I treat as terms of art) Bildung (“external” and “internal”), Sittlichkeit (both descriptive and normative), and interpretation (diversely manifested in different sectors of inquiry). I consider the (“metaphysical”) relationship between membership in the species Homo sapiens sapiens and functioning as a person the generic distinction of human cultures (enlanguaged cultures), which I call Intentionality (that is, whatever is culturally significant or significative); and the bearing of the thesis on familiar philosophical quarrels and theory of the sciences.
[1] Chomsky, N. (2000). New Horizons in the Study of Language and Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811937Search in Google Scholar
[2] Colapietro, V. M. (1989). Peirce’s Approach to the Self: A Semiotic Perspective on Human Subjectivity. Albany: SUNY Press. Search in Google Scholar
[3] Davidson, D. (2001). Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/0199246297.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
[4] Durkheim, E. (1938). The Rules of Sociological Method, trans. Sarah A. Soloway and John H. Mueller. New York: Free Press. Search in Google Scholar
[5] Eco, U. (1979). The Role of the Reader: Exploration in the Semiotics of Texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Search in Google Scholar
[6] Grene, M. (1974). The Understanding of Nature: Essays in the Philosophy of Biology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-2224-8Search in Google Scholar
[7] Kim, J. (2000). Mind in a Physical World: An Essay on the Mind-Body Problem and Mental Causation. Cambridge: MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar
[8] Lewontin, R., C., Rose, S., and Kamin, L. J. (1984). Biology, Ideology, and Human Nature. New York: Pantheon. Search in Google Scholar
[9] MacIntyre, A. (1999). Dependent Rational Animals: Why Humans Beings Need the Virtues. Chicago: Open Court. Search in Google Scholar
[10] Mead, G. H. (1934/1965). Mind, Self, and Society, from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Search in Google Scholar
[11] Mithen, S. (2006). The Singing Neanderthals: The Origins of Music, Language, Mind, and Body. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Search in Google Scholar
[12] Peirce, Ch. S. (1934–1963). Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Search in Google Scholar
[13] Portmann, A. (1961). Animals as Social Beings, trans. O. Coburn. London: Hutchinson. Search in Google Scholar
[14] Portmann, A. (1964). New Paths in Biology, trans. A. Pomerans. New York: Harper and Row. Search in Google Scholar
[15] Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge: MIT Press. Search in Google Scholar
[16] Savage-Rumbaugh, E. S. et al. (1993). Language Comprehension in Ape and Child (Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 58, Nos. 3–4, Serial No. 233). Search in Google Scholar
[17] Searle, J. R. (2010). Making the Social World: The Structure of Human Civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Search in Google Scholar
[18] Searle, J. R. (1995). The Construction of Social Reality. New York: Free Press, 1995. Search in Google Scholar
[19] Sellars, W. (1963). Imperatives, Intentions, and the Logic of “ought”. In H.-N, Castaeda and G. Nakhnikian (Eds.). Morality and the Language of Conduct. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Search in Google Scholar
[20] Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigation, trans. G.E.M. Anscombe. New York: Macmillan. Search in Google Scholar
© 2013 Institute for Research in Social Communication, Slovak Academy of Sciences
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.
