U ovom radu izlaze se kratak pregled Vincovog poimanja drustvenih nauka kao neodvojivih od filozofije i Vitgenstajnovog uticaja na ovakvo shvatanje. Autor ukazuje da su brojne primedbe kriticara za subjektivizam i relativizam uzrokovane nedovoljnom razradom i generalizacijama koje nalazimo u ranim Vincovim tekstovima, a koji su bili predmet njegove samokritike u kasnijem periodu. Osim tematizovanja standardno prihvacenog znacaja Vitgenstajnovih pojmova jezickih igara, zivotnih formi i sledjenja pravila po drustvenu teoriju, u tekstu se naglasava znacaj manje tematizovanih koncepata preglednog prikaza i (...) aspektnog sagledavanja po Vincovo poimanje mogucnosti razumevanja drugih kultura. (shrink)

A suggestion famously made by Peter Winch and carried through to present discussions holds that what constitutes the social as a kind consists of something shared – rules or practices commonly learned, internalized, or otherwise acquired by all members belonging to a society. This essays argues against the explanatory efficacy of appeals to this shared something as constitutive of a social kind by examining a violation of social norms or rules, viz., mistakes. I argue that an asymmetric relation exists between (...) the notion of mistakes and that of the social. In particular, mistakes do not presuppose a concept of the social, but the concept of the social requires prior specification of a category of mistakes. But no such prior specification proves possible. The very notion of a mistake is so inchoate that it makes it impossible to provide the kind of regimentation required for a rule-governed domain. Thus, there may be recognized mistakes even in the absence of a unified system or common knowledge of norms.Later writers attempt to avoid Winch's over-strong assumption that something shared and internal constitutes the social but cannot. Extending recent work by Stephen Turner, I argue that ``the social'' is not a domain that is susceptible to lawlike treatment, but rather a heterogeneous, motley collection. For absent the assumption of a shared something, no social object exists to be explained. So, I conclude, we have at present no clear way of marking out the social as a coherent or unified domain of inquiry. (shrink)

The following paper analyzes some epistemological categories from anthropological problem of understanding a “strange” form of life. To do this, it is taken the philosophical social program of Peter Winch and in particular his critique of classic anthropology “Witchcraft, Oracles and Magic among the Azande” by Evans-Pritchard. Winch, following Wittgenstein, represents a true paradigm shift within the analytic tradition of social science, which shows some similarities with hermeneutics, philosophy and intercultural ethics and pragmatism. In this context, the problem of the (...) multiplicity of forms of life and the respective “commensurability” of standards of rationality it is taken. In response to the charge of “relativism” from his theoretical proposal, it can be said that there are two categories of anthropological and social analysis that would allow or that would guide intercultural understanding: formal analogies and limiting notions. Finally, these categories are contrasted with the perspective of Karl-Otto Apel. (shrink)