Wittgenstein e Bourdieu: diálogos para uma sociologia prática

The dialogue between philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein s notions and Pierre Bourdieu s sociological concepts related to social practice of language shows that the philosophy of language has an important influence on contemporary social theory. When we compare the ideas of these authors we discover that beyond the direct influences from the philosopher that the sociologist recognizes there are great parallelisms of thought. That is, Wittgenstein s pragmatic thought of the use of language does not concern only language, but also every socially built behavior. When we notice that the social and linguistic behavior are borne by the individual in a tacit way, that leads us to theorize about the prereflective dimension that builds human actions and even the habits of thought. The same processes allow the uses of language to build wider social practices. Besides, John Austin, one of Wittgenstein s disciples, and his speech acts theory, contribute with a way to reflecting on how language ressembles a concrete action. Finally, the linguistc therapy that Wittgenstein means to be his philosophical proposal is assimilated by Bourdieu, who takes it as one of the necessary topics of the sociological work

Max Stirner, o único e o que lhe é próprio: uma interpretação e(m) algun(s) ensaio(s)

This work has a study object the main thinking work of Johan Kaspar Schmidt well known as Max Stirner (1806-1856) - originally titled (in German), Der Einzige und sein Eigentun, and translated into Portuguese by the Portuguese publisher Antígona in 2004, under the title The Unique and its Ownership. This book was known in 1844 although its publication dated 1845 seen that the censor of that time rejected the publication request in that year - saying that ( ) in concrete passages of that work, not only God, Christ, the church and the religion are usually object of proposal blasphemy, but also because all social order, the state and the government are defined as something that should not exist simultaneously as one justifies the lie, perjury, the murder and suicide and denies the ownership right. After this first attack and rejection by its bearing the unique come to be others target, due practically to all the philosophical political thinkers its time including thinkers like Ludwig Feuerbach and Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels in spite of, on the other hand, having inspired formulations and reformulations of many of those thinkers that were against then in their times, as well as those thinkers that came after then such as Nietzsche himself. Even though this work was be victim of powerful attempts of erasing it of history, it has shown a great repercussion power and that is the main reason that led us to ask the following questions what is its big originality? , how could his author arrive at a so impactant perspective? What is its most legitimate political place? We endeavored in elaborate answers to those questions trough the exegesis of its text, taking in account both the scholarship environment where the author produced his intellectual life set - and the detailed reading of texts linked to discussion in focus, where this reading is always based upon the meaning and senses traced by the texts and its contexts as a precaution against the limits and the traps of the readings which shed light markedly on strict letter of the phrases constructs. Ours conclusions point at to the idea that a work like this , that subverts the characteristic ways of thought of the modernity, completely, continues being a utter odds, without rank in the history of thought and the moderns political practices, finding parallel possibility only, in a very special way, with a certain autharchic perspective of Ancient Greece