Portrait du philosophe en forme de singe
Why do primatologists and anthropologists belong to different disciplines? This question convokes fundamental epistemic characteristics of both disciplines. It would be naïve to believe that goodwill would be sufficient to obtain a salutary convergence. The realist-cartesian paradigm of today’s etho...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Société Francophone de Primatologie
2012-12-01
|
| Series: | Revue de Primatologie |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/1079 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832581662763909120 |
|---|---|
| author | Dominique Lestel |
| author_facet | Dominique Lestel |
| author_sort | Dominique Lestel |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Why do primatologists and anthropologists belong to different disciplines? This question convokes fundamental epistemic characteristics of both disciplines. It would be naïve to believe that goodwill would be sufficient to obtain a salutary convergence. The realist-cartesian paradigm of today’s ethology cannot be conciliated with the notion of meaning, which is central in anthropology. The animal is always studied as a bearer of qualities that interest primatologists, such as memory, predatory strategies etc., instead of being considered through its existence. I suggest that it is possible to conceive other ways to practice primatology (for instance through a bi-constuctivist paradigm), which would give a central importance to the notion of meaning. However, hoping for this perspective is still illusionary. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-cd478f2a7b57406cb8e2119a1a712e6b |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2077-3757 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2012-12-01 |
| publisher | Société Francophone de Primatologie |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Revue de Primatologie |
| spelling | doaj-art-cd478f2a7b57406cb8e2119a1a712e6b2025-01-30T10:01:48ZengSociété Francophone de PrimatologieRevue de Primatologie2077-37572012-12-01410.4000/primatologie.1079Portrait du philosophe en forme de singeDominique LestelWhy do primatologists and anthropologists belong to different disciplines? This question convokes fundamental epistemic characteristics of both disciplines. It would be naïve to believe that goodwill would be sufficient to obtain a salutary convergence. The realist-cartesian paradigm of today’s ethology cannot be conciliated with the notion of meaning, which is central in anthropology. The animal is always studied as a bearer of qualities that interest primatologists, such as memory, predatory strategies etc., instead of being considered through its existence. I suggest that it is possible to conceive other ways to practice primatology (for instance through a bi-constuctivist paradigm), which would give a central importance to the notion of meaning. However, hoping for this perspective is still illusionary.https://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/1079realist-cartesian paradigmbi-constructivist paradigmphilosophy of ethology |
| spellingShingle | Dominique Lestel Portrait du philosophe en forme de singe Revue de Primatologie realist-cartesian paradigm bi-constructivist paradigm philosophy of ethology |
| title | Portrait du philosophe en forme de singe |
| title_full | Portrait du philosophe en forme de singe |
| title_fullStr | Portrait du philosophe en forme de singe |
| title_full_unstemmed | Portrait du philosophe en forme de singe |
| title_short | Portrait du philosophe en forme de singe |
| title_sort | portrait du philosophe en forme de singe |
| topic | realist-cartesian paradigm bi-constructivist paradigm philosophy of ethology |
| url | https://journals.openedition.org/primatologie/1079 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT dominiquelestel portraitduphilosopheenformedesinge |