The Therapeutic vs. Constructive Approach to the Transformative Character of Collective Intentionality. The Interpersonal Level of Explanation

IF 0.6 Q2 LOGIC
D. Żuromski
{"title":"The Therapeutic vs. Constructive Approach to the Transformative Character of Collective Intentionality. The Interpersonal Level of Explanation","authors":"D. Żuromski","doi":"10.12775/llp.2020.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In their article, Andrea Kern and Henrike Moll (2017) argue in support of a certain vision of shared/collective intentionality and its role in understanding our cognitive capacities. This vision is based on two aspects: a negative one, i.e. a theoretical diagnosis of the contemporary debate on shared/collective intentionality, and a positive one, referring to the proposals for shared/collective intentionality. As regards the negative aspect, the main thesis concerns the arbitrary assumptions underlying the whole debate on shared/collective intentionality. According to Kern and Moll (2017), this assumption prevents us from capturing the transformative character of shared/collective intentionality and therefore the uniqueness of the human being. This paper is not so much a detailed criticism or discussion of said article, as rather an opportunity to formulate my own position in the colloquy with Kern and Mole’s position. This approach states that understanding the transformative character of SI/CI requires taking into account a broader approach to the constitution of the mind, in which, apart from the personal and the sub-personal level of explanation, there is also a third level of explanation  the interpersonal level of explanation. Thus understood, Received March 25, 2019. Revised December 12, 2019. Published online February 19, 2020 © 2020 by Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń","PeriodicalId":43501,"journal":{"name":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","volume":" ","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Logic and Logical Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12775/llp.2020.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LOGIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In their article, Andrea Kern and Henrike Moll (2017) argue in support of a certain vision of shared/collective intentionality and its role in understanding our cognitive capacities. This vision is based on two aspects: a negative one, i.e. a theoretical diagnosis of the contemporary debate on shared/collective intentionality, and a positive one, referring to the proposals for shared/collective intentionality. As regards the negative aspect, the main thesis concerns the arbitrary assumptions underlying the whole debate on shared/collective intentionality. According to Kern and Moll (2017), this assumption prevents us from capturing the transformative character of shared/collective intentionality and therefore the uniqueness of the human being. This paper is not so much a detailed criticism or discussion of said article, as rather an opportunity to formulate my own position in the colloquy with Kern and Mole’s position. This approach states that understanding the transformative character of SI/CI requires taking into account a broader approach to the constitution of the mind, in which, apart from the personal and the sub-personal level of explanation, there is also a third level of explanation  the interpersonal level of explanation. Thus understood, Received March 25, 2019. Revised December 12, 2019. Published online February 19, 2020 © 2020 by Nicolaus Copernicus University in Toruń
集体意向转化特征的治疗与建构方法。解释的人际层面
Andrea Kern和Henrike Moll(2017)在他们的文章中支持共享/集体意向性的某种愿景及其在理解我们的认知能力方面的作用。这一愿景基于两个方面:一个是消极的,即对当代关于共享/集体意向性辩论的理论诊断;一个是积极的,指的是关于共享/集体意向性的建议。至于消极方面,主要论点涉及在整个关于共享/集体意向性的辩论中隐含的武断假设。根据Kern和Moll(2017)的说法,这一假设使我们无法捕捉到共享/集体意向性的变革特征,从而无法捕捉到人类的独特性。这篇文章并不是对上述文章的详细批评或讨论,而是一个机会,在与Kern和Mole的立场的对话中阐述自己的立场。这种方法表明,理解SI/CI的变革特征需要考虑到更广泛的思维构成方法,其中,除了个人和亚个人层面的解释之外,还有第三个解释层次人际层面的解释。这样理解,收到2019年3月25日。2019年12月12日修订。2020年2月19日在线发布©2020由托洛茨基尼古拉斯哥白尼大学
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
1.00
自引率
40.00%
发文量
29
×
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