Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Intro
What do the origins, essences and destinies of cultural forms looks like in terms of
activities and ethnomethods for activities?
Simmels stages:
SocialDarwinism
Neo-Kantianism
Philosophy of Life
Some key points out of Benzer:
[Society secondary to interaction, individuals with motives and drives, interests are
primary. Parts/whole, Interaction/individualism, No foundation. Nothing isolated.
Everything interrelated. Web-change one, change the others. Forms in plural.
Abstract, pure forms. Not historical. Forms sub specie aeternitatis. Sociology deals
with the form and forms of sociation, Vergessellschaftung. Concept of distance is
important to analyze SECRET, CONFLICT Is his methodology consistent with
his substantive writings?]
there is really a product of the mind. Strong claim: Nature is mind and mind is
nature.)
So what gives society interrelatedness? What are the apriorities of the fact that
concrete processes in consciousness are processes of sociation? What element
produce the societal unit.
Societal connection is not a matter of observation. It inheres in the things themselves.
Instead of categories of cognition
A priori conditions which reside in the relating elements, individuals
not conscious but knows (cf. W. OC) the other is tied to him
1) Distortions, Generalized picture of other person, in terms of a category. There is
an ungraspable core of individuality. So it is INCOMPLETE. It is not the same as an
instantiation of a Universal statement nevertheless. It is not subsumable in that way. It
does not coincide with the general type.
(there is a representationalism lurking)
All of us are fragments, not only of general man, but also of ourselves
But we compensate for the blind stop, we try to reach some kind of typical unity in
our view of another individual and such a possibility is a precondition of additional
interactions
We see the other not simply as an individual but as a colleague or comrade or fellow
party member in short, as a cohabitant of the same specific world. And this
inevitable, quite automatic assumption is one of the means by which ones personality
and reality assume, in the imagination of another, the quality and form required by
sociability.
But the very alterations and new formations which preclude this ideal knowledge of
him are, actually, the conditions which make possible the sort of relations we call
social. The phenomenon recalls Kants conception of the categories: they form
immediate data into new objects, but they alone make the given world into a
knowable world.
2) The apriori of empirical social life: In some respects the individual is not an
element of society and this constitutes the positive condition for the possibility that in
other respects he is. Non-social imponderables.
Continuum of how much is left out. Love, friendship (single life) (priest, formally
identical phenomenon though type of content rather than content disappears here)
On the other side: produce, buy, sell (?)
Individual-society (both in and out). Same form of life in God-man, and in the nontranscendental sphere in nature-individual (Nature stands over and against but still
man comprises nature [role of the mind]). Individual-groups
the two social and individual- are only two different categories under which the
same content is subsumed, just as the same plant may be considered from the
standpoint of its biological development or its practical uses or its aesthetic
significance[but].The individual is contained in sociation and at the same time
truly pure sociation out of the complex total phenomenon cannot be forced by logical
means
(intuitively conveyed method and then explicit, where?)
Conflict
Conflict at a certain level of relations does not mean that it reduces the unity of the
whole.