Volume 8 · Number 2 · Pages 253–258
Josef Mitterer and the Philosopher’s Stone (Around His Neck)

Michael Dellwing

Log in to download the full text for free

> Citation > Similar > References > Add Comment


Context: Non-dualist philosophy is no longer novel. Arguing against the distinctions between thought and action, theory and practice, language and objects has been a staple of the debate for decades, and Josef Mitterer offers another approach to the problem. Problem: Non-dualist philosophy is beset by a problem: it is trying to argue against a separation of “ideas” from the life-world while staying exclusively on the side of ideas. It offers a philosophy seminar argument against the bread and butter of philosophy seminars. Results: The paper argues that non-dualism in practice should be represented not by philosophers but by everyday life sociologists; not by those who argue against theory and idealisms but by those who simply ignore them. Non-dualism, however, is a useful tool when theorists have to be confronted practically; this, I argue, is its value, and in this debate, non-dualism is welcome. It is, however, a value that should not be overstated.

Key words: Non-dualism, pragmatism, everyday life sociology, symbolic interaction, Erving Goffman, Herbert Blumer


Dellwing M. (2013) Josef Mitterer and the philosopher’s stone (around his neck). Constructivist Foundations 8(2): 253–258. http://constructivist.info/8/2/253

Export article citation data: Plain Text · BibTex · EndNote · Reference Manager (RIS)

Similar articles

Vörös S. (2014) The Uroboros of Consciousness: Between the Naturalisation of Phenomenology and the Phenomenologisation of Nature
Weiss M. G. (2013) Non-dualistic Sex. Josef Mitterer’s Non-dualistic Philosophy in the Light of Judith Butler’s (De)Constructivist Feminism
Riegler A. & Weber S. (2013) Non-dualism: A New Understanding of Language
Ene P. (2013) Descriptions as Distinctions. George Spencer Brown’s Calculus of Indications as a Basis for Mitterer’s Non-dualistic Descriptions
Müller K. H. (2008) Non-dualistic? Radical Constructivist?


Becker H. S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. The Free Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Becker H. S. (1986) Doing things together: Selected papers. Northwestern University Press, Evanston. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Blumer H. (1931) Science without concepts. American Journal of Sociology 36(4): 515–533. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Blumer H. (1939) Critiques of research in the social sciences: An appraisal of Thomas and Znaniecki’s The Polish peasant in Europe and America. Social Science Research Council, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Blumer H. (1969) Symbolic interactionism. Perspective and method. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Blumer H. (1971) Social problems as collective behavior. Social Problems 18(3): 298–306. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Bude H. & Dellwing M. (2011) Die improvisierte Welt. In: Das Recht möchte formal sein. In: Bude H. & Dellwing M. (eds.) Stanley Fish. Das Recht möchte formal sein. Suhrkamp, Berlin: 7–31. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Dellwing M. & Prus R. (2012) Einführung in die interaktionistische Ethnografie. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Dellwing M. (2008) Reste: Die Befreiung des Labeling Approach von der Befreiung. Kriminologisches Journal 38: 161–178. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Dellwing M. (2009) Das interaktionistische Dreieck. Monatsschrift für Kriminologie und Strafrechtsreform 92: 3–17. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Dellwing M. (2010) Looking-glass crime. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie 31: 209–229. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Dellwing M. (2011) Rhetoriken von Norm und Risiko. Soziale Passagen 3: 81–95. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fish S. (1980) Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretative communities. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fish S. (1989) Doing what comes naturally: Change, rhetoric, and the practice of theory in literary and legal studies. Duke University Press, Durham. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fish S. (1994) There’s no such thing as free speech: And it’s a good thing, too. Oxford University Press, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fish S. (1998) Truth and toilets. In: Dickstein M. (ed.) The revival of pragmatism: New essays on social thought, law, and culture. Duke University Press, Durham. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Fish S. (1999) The trouble with principle. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Glasersfeld E. (2008) Can dichotomies be tamed? Constructivist Foundations 3(3): 123–126. http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/journal/3/3/123.glasersfeld
Goffman E. (1959) The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Goffman E. (1967) Interaction ritual. Pantheon Books, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Goffman E. (1971) Relations in public. Basic Books, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Kitsuse J. I. & Spector M. (1975) Social problems and deviance. Social Problems 22: 584–594. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Lofland J. (1976) Doing social life. The qualitative study of human interaction in natural settings. John Wiley & Sons, New York. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mitterer J. (2011) Das Jenseits der Philosophie. Wider das dualistische Erkenntnisprinzip [The beyond of philosophy: Against the dualistic principle of cognition]. Velbrück, Weilerswist. Originally published in 1992. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Mitterer J. (2011) Die Flucht aus der Beliebigkeit [The flight from contingency]. Velbrück, Weilerswist. Originally published in 2001. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Prus R. (1999) Beyond the power mystique. Power as intersubjective accomplishment. State University of New York Press, Albany. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Riegler A. & Weber S. (eds.) (2010) Die Dritte Philosophie. Velbrück, Weilerswist. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rorty R. (1982) Consequences. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rorty R. (1992) What can you expect from anti-foundationalist philosophers? A reply to Lynn Baker. Virginia Law Review 78: 719–727. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Rorty R. (1999) Philosophy and social hope. Penguin, London. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar
Shalin D. N. (1986) Pragmatism and social interactionism. American Sociological Review 51: 9–29. ▸︎ Google︎ Scholar

Comments: 0

To stay informed about comments to this publication and post comments yourself, please log in first.