Learning objectives
In-depth knowledge and understanding of theoretical philosophy, its
relation to socio-philosophical questions, and its application to contemporary
debates. Ability to discuss in an argumentative form the subject-matters
proposed in the lessons and to critically compare different interpretations
of the assigned texts. Development of communicative and learning skills,
and of the ability to make autonomous judgments on theoretical
questions. Ability to compose a written work in argumentative
form on the course themes
Prerequisites
Knowledge of the fundamental concepts and the principal writers in the
history of theoretical philosophy.
Course unit content
La filosofia delle pratiche sociali
Il corso metterà a tema il concetto di ‘pratica sociale’, il suo legame con l’azione individuale e collettiva e con le strutture sociali, e quindi la sua connessione con altre nozioni strettamente collegate quali ‘vita’, ‘azione’, 'performance' ‘disposizione’, ‘potere’, ‘dispositivo’, 'rito', ‘convenzione’, ‘norma’, ‘istituzione’. Verrà indagata quindi la rilevanza della nozione di pratica sociale per le scienze cognitive, la teoria dell’azione e l’ontologia sociale contemporanea
Bibliography
P. Winch, “The Nature of Meaningful Behavior”, in Id. The Idea of a Social Science and its Relation to Philosophy, 2nd edition, Routledge, London, 1990, cap. 2, pp. 40-65
J. Rawls, “Two Concepts of Rule”, The Philosophical Review 64/1 (1955), pp. 3-32
D. Lewis, “Language and Languages”, in Keith Gunderson (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1975, pp. 3-35
M. Thompson, “The Representation of the Living Individual, “The Representation of the Life-Form Itself”, in Id, Life and Action, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2009, pp.49-82
J. Dewey, “The Place of Habit in Conduct.” : Section IV: Custom and Habit; Section V: Custom and Morality; Section VI: Habit and Psychology, in Human Nature and Conduct, Holton, New York, 1922
P. Bourdieu, “Strutture, habitus, corpo”, in Id., Il senso pratico, Armando, Roma, 2005, capp. 3 e 5, pp. 83-102
A. Giddens, “Elements of the Theory of Structuration”, in Id., The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration, Polity Press, Oxford, 1984, cap. 1, pp. 1-40
S. Haslanger, Critical Theory and Practice (The 2015 Spinoza Lectures (booklet), Koninklijke Van Gorcum, Amsterdam, 2017, pp. 7-7
S. Haslanger, Critical Theory and Practice (The 2015 Spinoza Lectures (booklet), Koninklijke Van Gorcum, Amsterdam, 2017, pp. 29-48
S. Gallagher, “Scanning the lifeworld: Towards a critical neuroscience of action and interaction”, In Choudhury, S, Slaby, J (eds) Critical Neuroscience: A Handbook of the Social and Cultural Contexts of Neuroscience, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester, pp. 85–110
M.FOUCAULT, The Subject and the Power (1982), Afterword in H.L.DREYFUS – P. RABINOW, Michel Foucault. Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (1983; 1a ed. 1982), trad. it. Il soggetto e il potere, in H.L.DREYFUS - P.RABINOW, La ricerca di Michel Foucault. Analitica della verità e storia del presente, Ponte alle Grazie, Firenze 1989, pp. 250-251
G. Deleuze, Che cos’è un dispositivo, Cronopio, Napoli, 2007
T. Schatzki, “Social Practices”, in Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990, cap. 4, pp. 88-132
R. Tuomela, “An account of Social Practices”, inThe Philosophy of Social Practices – A Collective Acceptance View. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002, cap. 4, pp. 78-121
For students who do not attend the lessons is recommended the following text:
T. Schatzki, Social Practices: A Wittgensteinian Approach to Human Activity and the Social, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990
Teaching methods
Seminar
Guided Discussion
Written Exercitation
Assessment methods and criteria
L'esame finale prevede la composizione di un paper di tipo argomentativo (max 30.000 caratteri) sui temi e sui testi del corso, concordato precedentemente con il docente. Il voto finale sarà composto per 70 % dalla valutazione del paper, per il 30 % dalla discussione orale della bibliografia del corso. Per gli studenti che avranno frequentato almeno il 70 % delle lezioni, la prova orale sarà assolta mediante la valutazione della partecipazione alla discussione in classe e una relazione orale sostenuta durante il corso su un testo. Per gli altri studenti, la prova orale sulla bibliografia sarà sostenuta in occasione della discussione del paper.
The final evaluation (on a scale of 0-30) will be determined on the basis of four factors: 1) Expressive accuracy; 2) argumentative capacity and independence of judgment; 3) Ability to read, understand, and critically analyze philosophical texts; 4) Ability to identify theoretical links between different concepts and philosophical positions.
The exam is considered passed if it reaches the minimum grade of 18/30. The final mark will be determined according to the following parameters:
30 e Lode: Cum Laude; Outstanding expressive skills, brilliant ability to argue a thesis in a convincing way and to identify its weaknesses, terrific understanding and critical analysis of the texts assigned and the main concepts involved
30: Excellent; accurate and very well articulated expression skills, excellent understanding of the texts assigned and the concepts and topics involved
27-29: Very Good; correct and orderly expression skills, adequate capacity for argumentation and critical analysis of texts and concepts
24-26: Good: Good but not always correct expression skills, satisfactory ability to argue a philosophical thesis and to analyze texts and concepts, knowledge of texts not always complete
21-23: Discreet: not always appropriate expression skills, discreet argumentative ability, sometimes unsatisfactory understanding of texts and concepts
18-21: Sufficient: expressive skills often not adequate, unsatisfactory argumentative capacity, acceptable but often superficial knowledge and understanding of texts and concepts
0-18: Insufficient: Serious expressive gaps, inability to philosophically argue a thesis, inadequate knowledge and understanding of texts and concepts
