Texto/ Contexto I (Em Portuguese do Brasil) [Anatol Rosenfeld] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. É a máscara da ficção que está a. Texto/contexto (Crítica) (Portuguese Edition) [Anatol Rosenfeld] on *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Get this from a library! Texto/contexto; ensaios.. [Anatol Rosenfeld].
|Published (Last):||12 January 2010|
|PDF File Size:||13.68 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.97 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Texto/contexto Anatol Rosenfeld
Debate sobre o artigo de Naomar de Almeida Filho. Almeida Filho’s essay is stimulating, as indeed is all of his work. More than as a text, let us approach it, as proposed by Anatol Rosenfeldas a “pre-text”, a pretext for dialogue, happenings, and creation.
The “text” will be this construction in movement, this totality of arguments, intensities, and intention. So let us tackle the debate.
Naturally, this epistemological architecture is not new, in fact it is a common pathway for those who attempt to overcome a hegemonic paradigm or paradigmatic references, i. This demands a profound critique “from the inside”, i. Unfortunately, in this case sociology was taken for one of its schools, that of functionalism, and its authors were “evaluated” based on the operational concepts they use, considered “revealing” of their adherence to the xontexto view of health.
According to the author, anthropology, as expressed by the watershed of medical anthropology, has advanced in the effort at conceptualizing the DIS complex disease, illness, sicknessbut has failed to overcome the essential problem of prioritizing the ill individual’s return to functioning with a normal and healthy life, fexto entering into the issue of what this normality is or the concept of health implied therein.
Since so-called “radical” phenomenology had great influence on the field of health in the s and now returns in adulterated fashion under the veil of methodological imprecisions, empiricist spontaneity, and studies erroneously referred to as hexto research”, one can understand the author’s concern. The rosnfeld to overcome the negative vision of health still prevails.
However, perhaps it is not a matter of viewing health as “the mere absence of disease-illness-sickness”, hence an absence in contxto of what health is in fact. But would the issue not be to recognize that the human experience of health has adhered to not only dialectically but “ontologically” the very clash, the very struggle against death and contexyo fear of pain, suffering, and destruction? Not as non-disease but as the unceasing struggle both against maculae sanus and at the same time for physical, psychological, and cultural integrity salvus Almeida Filho,meanwhile, always noting the historicity of this confrontation, since as mentioned above the historicity of the object is the reality principle of Social Sciences Passeron, Once removed from this dimension, does the concept of health not become xontexto down?
This does not indicate ignoring the need, identified so well by Almeida Filho’s paper, to undertake a reflection that overcomes the view of health as the mere inverse of disease.
Still, as postulated, we run the risk of basing the discussion of this insufficiency which is rich because it makes dialogue with other fields of knowledge indispensable on an anatop of incapacitybased on a rapid and external review of what these sciences are. But the debate does not end here. It raises anatop bothersome question: And we would add to this: Many authors in Modernity have followed this enticing proposition, albeit in the form of a “unified theory”.
The so-called “total theories” that circulated in the 19th century and survived the 20th century articulated disciplinary knowledge and even provided a number of multidisciplinary propositions.
They made an effort to translate, measure, and predict the complex, the future, and even the incommensurable. They achieved historical success, although orthopedically framing the real in reality; after all, they had at hand some certainties and the notion that the gaps in knowledge had already been identified.
Still, the paper’s objective is precisely to distinguish itself from this mold: The author courageously proposes to tackle other powerful obstacles that resist attempts at a General Theory. The basic dimension of any theory, the concept, reveals the challenge of preserving its wnatol and polysemy, meanwhile being “objectifying”. It antaol necessary to discern in the word health what is defined as concept, object, object-model, and field, both with regard to texho heuristic aspect and the socio-cultural practices imbedded in these definitions which are not restricted to SmpH but connect to a sociology of knowledge.
A General Theory is proposed in which each field of knowledge plays a role, contributing with certain operators. Adhered to each other within this theoretical system, which is understood as open, would such distinct epistemic traditions be comfortable?
Would the “descriptors” be the possibility of objectivity capable of equalizing or assuaging such radical differences as well as promoting a trans- or interdisciplinary dialogue?
Naturally any theory must “semantically discipline” the words and concepts it employs Passeron, But how does one avoid transforming such a proposition into the grammar of a formal system?
Texto/contexto torrent | Télécharger
How does one resist succumbing to the clutches of structuralist logic? Thinking out loud, how does one preserve the poiesisso dear to the complex thinking we claim for the health field, if one implicitly determines disciplinary roles rosenfe,d priori?
Given the limited space for debate, Rosefneld wish to conclude by saying how happy I am to be able to initiate a dense debate, made possible by such a challenging text by Almeida Filho.
ReadCube Visualizar o texto. Similares no Google Citados no Google Scholar. Debate on the paper by Naomar de Almeida Filho.