Durkheim and Levi-Strauss and Thought Essay examples -- Psychology Phi

The ritual examination of the other functions as a harvesting of capable resources to formulate a theory of the western self. In the chemise of the reactive but scientific anthropologist, the mind of the other is a key to understanding the universal nature of the tender mind. Durkheim and Lvi-Strauss consider primitive purpose to be rooted in certain modes of compartmentalization which they consider to be precursors and parallels, respectively, to modern Euro-American scientific rationality. They take this connection between modes of mixed bag and perspective as indicative of a universal condition of human world that shows the subject is rule bound and order winsome. This conclusion of mind from classification from society is ultimately but the reenactment of their definitions and presuppositions that arise from the form of sacred position they call rationality.To begin with, for both Durkheim and Lvi-Strauss , primitive pur visit is the result of how the primitive classifies the world, which in turn is the result of accident and human nature. Classification is the center of thought, for both writers. Durkheim explains this well in his reconciliation of the theories of apriorism and empiricism. He argues that the categories that are the sine qua non of thought are themselves the results of social conditions. If the categories are basically collective representations they translate states of the collectivity, first and foremost. They depend upon the way the collectivity is organized, upon its morphology, its religious, moral, and economic institutions, and so on. (Durkheim 15) He then takes up the remainder of the apriorist narrative these categories are the foundations of thought and it is only ... ... ordered mind seems a perfect example of Durkheims division in all religious thought between the unspeakable and the profane. For both writers, a universal and order loving subject is a sacred necessity which cannot be questi geniusd within and by the structure of their modes of religious thought. But of course, this totalizing theory would not grant my argument an exception either, if my view of the subject were also an article of faith, but this presumes the very system of classification of the academic in describing the classification of the subject that this argument is meant to question. In the case that we do not presume the existence of a classifying, order loving thinker, religious thought may well never even occur, as there is no one to think of the profane and the sacred, and no one to generate a science of the concrete. There is, instead, only the concrete.