EMPATHY, MIND, AND MORALS

A. Goldman
{"title":"EMPATHY, MIND, AND MORALS","authors":"A. Goldman","doi":"10.5840/APAPA201321","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Early Greek philosophers doubled as natural scientists; that is a commonplace. It is equally true, though less often remarked, that numerous historical philosophers doubled as cognitive scientists. They constructed models of mental faculties in much the spirit of modern cognitive science, for which they are widely cited as precursors in the cognitive science literature. Today, of course, there is more emphasis on experiment, and greater division of labor. Philosophers focus on theory, foundations, and methodology, while cognitive scientists are absorbed by experimental techniques and findings. Nonetheless, there are sound reasons for massive communication between philosophy and cognitive science, which happily proceeds apace. On this occasion I shall not try to enumerate or delineate these lines of communication in any comprehensive fashion. I just wish to illustrate the benefits to philosophy in two domains: the theory of mind and moral theory. Though this may sound like an ambitious agenda, I shall in fact examine just a single phenomenon: empathy. Using that term first broadly and later narrowly, I shall argue that empathy may be the key to one sector of the philosophy of mind and to several sectors of moral theory. But whether empathy can in fact unlock any doors depends heavily on the outcome of empirical research in cognitive science.","PeriodicalId":443144,"journal":{"name":"The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1992-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"220","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The American Philosophical Association Centennial Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/APAPA201321","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 220

Abstract

Early Greek philosophers doubled as natural scientists; that is a commonplace. It is equally true, though less often remarked, that numerous historical philosophers doubled as cognitive scientists. They constructed models of mental faculties in much the spirit of modern cognitive science, for which they are widely cited as precursors in the cognitive science literature. Today, of course, there is more emphasis on experiment, and greater division of labor. Philosophers focus on theory, foundations, and methodology, while cognitive scientists are absorbed by experimental techniques and findings. Nonetheless, there are sound reasons for massive communication between philosophy and cognitive science, which happily proceeds apace. On this occasion I shall not try to enumerate or delineate these lines of communication in any comprehensive fashion. I just wish to illustrate the benefits to philosophy in two domains: the theory of mind and moral theory. Though this may sound like an ambitious agenda, I shall in fact examine just a single phenomenon: empathy. Using that term first broadly and later narrowly, I shall argue that empathy may be the key to one sector of the philosophy of mind and to several sectors of moral theory. But whether empathy can in fact unlock any doors depends heavily on the outcome of empirical research in cognitive science.
同理心,心智和道德
早期希腊哲学家兼做自然科学家;这是老生常谈。同样真实的是,尽管很少有人注意到,许多历史哲学家兼做认知科学家。他们在很大程度上以现代认知科学的精神构建了心智能力模型,因此他们被广泛引用为认知科学文献中的先驱。当然,今天更强调实验,分工也更大。哲学家专注于理论、基础和方法论,而认知科学家则专注于实验技术和发现。尽管如此,哲学和认知科学之间有充分的理由进行大规模的交流,这种交流令人愉快地迅速进行。在此,我不打算以任何全面的方式列举或描述这些交流方式。我只想说明哲学在两个领域的好处:心智理论和道德理论。虽然这听起来像是一个雄心勃勃的议程,但我实际上只会研究一个现象:同理心。先从广义上,后从狭义上使用这个术语,我认为移情可能是心灵哲学的一个领域和道德理论的几个领域的关键。但同理心是否真的能打开任何一扇门,在很大程度上取决于认知科学实证研究的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信