Freedom: An enactive possibility

IF 0.4 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Adam Rostowski
{"title":"Freedom: An enactive possibility","authors":"Adam Rostowski","doi":"10.1515/humaff-2022-0037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In Freedom: An Impossible Reality (FAIR), Raymond Tallis finds room in a law-abiding universe for a uniquely human form of agency, capable of envisioning and pursuing genuinely open possibilities, thereby deflecting rather than merely inflecting the course of events, in accordance with self-owned intentions, reasons and goals. He argues that the genuinely free human pursuit of such propositional attitudes depends on our acting from a “virtual outside”, at an epistemic distance from the physical world that reveals not only what is the case, but that it is the case. The enactive approach in cognitive science and philosophy of mind aims to supersede the cognitivist traditional that has long dominated the field, by reframing cognition as an agentʼs immediate, embodied engagement with its environment. In an appendix of FAIR, Tallis argues that this approach risks both eliminating propositional attitudes, and collapsing the epistemic distance between agent and world. He concludes that if enactive theorists are to distinguish between genuinely pursuing an intention and merely responding to a stimulus, their corrective to cognitivism is in need of a correction of its own. This paper argues that such a correction is already to be found within the enactive literature, and furthermore, that it bears striking similarities to Tallis own account of what makes human agency unique. It is therefore concluded that the case for freedom set out in FAIR is compatible with the enactive approach.","PeriodicalId":44829,"journal":{"name":"Human Affairs-Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly","volume":"32 1","pages":"427 - 438"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Affairs-Postdisciplinary Humanities & Social Sciences Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/humaff-2022-0037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract In Freedom: An Impossible Reality (FAIR), Raymond Tallis finds room in a law-abiding universe for a uniquely human form of agency, capable of envisioning and pursuing genuinely open possibilities, thereby deflecting rather than merely inflecting the course of events, in accordance with self-owned intentions, reasons and goals. He argues that the genuinely free human pursuit of such propositional attitudes depends on our acting from a “virtual outside”, at an epistemic distance from the physical world that reveals not only what is the case, but that it is the case. The enactive approach in cognitive science and philosophy of mind aims to supersede the cognitivist traditional that has long dominated the field, by reframing cognition as an agentʼs immediate, embodied engagement with its environment. In an appendix of FAIR, Tallis argues that this approach risks both eliminating propositional attitudes, and collapsing the epistemic distance between agent and world. He concludes that if enactive theorists are to distinguish between genuinely pursuing an intention and merely responding to a stimulus, their corrective to cognitivism is in need of a correction of its own. This paper argues that such a correction is already to be found within the enactive literature, and furthermore, that it bears striking similarities to Tallis own account of what makes human agency unique. It is therefore concluded that the case for freedom set out in FAIR is compatible with the enactive approach.
自由:一种可行的可能性
摘要在《自由:不可能的现实》(FAIR)中,Raymond Tallis在守法的宇宙中为一种独特的人类代理形式找到了空间,能够设想和追求真正开放的可能性,从而根据自己的意图、原因和目标,改变而不仅仅是改变事件的进程。他认为,人类对这种命题态度的真正自由追求取决于我们从“虚拟的外部”采取行动,与物理世界保持认识距离,这不仅揭示了情况,而且揭示了事实。认知科学和心理哲学中的行为方法旨在取代长期主导该领域的认知主义传统,将认知重新定义为一个主体与其环境的直接、具体的参与。在FAIR的附录中,Tallis认为这种方法既有可能消除命题态度,也有可能破坏主体和世界之间的认识距离。他总结道,如果行为理论家要区分真正追求意图和仅仅对刺激做出反应,他们对认知主义的纠正就需要自己的纠正。本文认为,这种修正已经在成文文献中找到了,此外,它与塔利斯自己关于人类能动性独特性的描述有着惊人的相似之处。因此得出的结论是,《公平竞争法》中提出的自由理由与成文法是一致的。
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
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
25.00%
发文量
41
×
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