Group of Open Space Development, Department of Architecture, Urban and Landscape Planning, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany.
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2021 Apr 9;43(2):54. doi: 10.1007/s40656-021-00401-x.
This paper uses structural analogies to competing political philosophies of human society as a heuristic tool to differentiate between ecological theories and to bring out new aspects of apparently well-known classics of ecological scholarship. These two different areas of knowledge have in common that their objects are 'societies', i.e. units composed of individuals, and that contradictory and competing theories about these supra-individual units exist. The benefit of discussing ecological theories in terms of their analogies to political philosophies, in this case liberalism, democratism and conservatism, consists in the fact that political philosophies show clear differences and particularities as regards their approach to the concepts of individuality and intentional action. The method therefore helps to expose peculiarities of ecological theories that are usually considered canonical (e.g. Clements, Gleason), as well as hybrid forms (E. P. Odum), and to differentiate between two different types of theories about functional wholes. The basis of this method is the constitutional-theoretical premise that modern paradigms of socialization structure the ecological discourse.
本文运用结构类比的方法，将人类社会的竞争政治哲学作为一种启发式工具，对生态理论进行区分，并揭示出明显为人们所熟知的生态学术经典的新方面。这两个不同的知识领域的共同点是，它们的对象都是“社会”，即由个体组成的单位，并且这些超个体单位存在相互矛盾和竞争的理论。在本文中，将生态理论类比为政治哲学（自由主义、民主主义和保守主义）进行讨论的好处在于，政治哲学在其对个性和意向性行为概念的处理方式上存在明显的差异和特殊性。因此，这种方法有助于揭示通常被认为是规范的生态理论的特殊性（例如克莱门茨、格里森），以及混合形式（E.P.奥姆），并区分关于功能整体的两种不同类型的理论。这种方法的基础是构成理论的前提，即社会化的现代范式构建了生态话语。
