STORIES ABOUT WHO WE ARE: reflections on the History of Law and the History of Philosophy
When: 01/12, Tuesday, 14h – 15h30
Where: Google Meet platform (link will be emailed to subscribers)
Subscription Link: http://inscricoes.ufsc.br/historias-sobre-quem-somos
What is the status of a discipline that deals with the history of a consolidated area of research? In this discussion, we intend to deal with two particular cases of this general issue: the History of Philosophy and the History of Law.
Each of the two cases has salient peculiarities: for example, the History of Philosophy is a discipline consecrated in the curricula of philosophy courses, it is a field that is part of the expertise expected of a professional philosopher and, for part of the philosophical community, is the philosophical exercise par excellence (and, in the most extreme versions of the thesis, the only possible). On the other hand, the History of Law occupies a very different position: it is not, at least in Brazil, a consolidated part of curricula and the object of systematic investigation and bibliographic production that confronts a history of naïve law that is sometimes told despite the lack of evidence in its favor and a critical look capable of identifying elements of social power that this naïve version creates and consolidates.
In this sense, this round table aims to explore some specific difficulties of each area. In favor of a History of Law, Professor Diego Nunes intends to discuss theoretical difficulties for the establishment of a community of law historians who guide their investigations using consolidated tools of search and organization of historical evidence, moving away from a “pseudo-scholarly baccalaureate” that infiltrates the naïve version.
Alternatively, given the place of the History of Philosophy in the Brazilian philosophical tradition, Professor Alexandre Meyer Luz intends to discuss difficulties for the consolidation of a philosophical tradition centered on problems as an alternative to the place of honor often attributed to historiographic work.
Despite the differences between the subareas, the authors intend to suggest that there are many common points that deserve joint attention: epistemological issues, such as the question about the status of subareas as potential producers of knowledge; questions about the symbolic power that the sub-areas carry and distribute, etc.
Therefore, with the aim of creating a space for exploring these common issues.
All invited!
