Heidegger’s Equipment vs. Gibson’s Affordances. Why They Differ and How They Articulate

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
G. Declerck
{"title":"Heidegger’s Equipment vs. Gibson’s Affordances. Why They Differ and How They Articulate","authors":"G. Declerck","doi":"10.24193/subbphil.2021.2s.03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\"My main objective in this article will be to compare Heidegger’s description of the way we perceive our environment in everyday coping – which is based on the concept of equipment (Zeug) – and James Gibson’s theory of affordance perception. More precisely, I will discuss whether equipment and affordance can be equated. In contrast to some interpretations, I will defend that they cannot: equipment and affordances refer to different ontological kinds and the perceptual or cognitive processes that are implied in each case have nothing in common. In addition, I will defend that distinguishing equipment and affordances is a key step towards a more comprehensive account of the way we perceive and deal with the possibilities offered by our environment, and that Heidegger’s and Gibson’s accounts, far from being mutually exclusive, complement each other. Some work has however to be done in order to articulate them in a coherent theoretical framework.\n\nKeywords: Heidegger, Gibson, affordance, equipment, perception\n\"","PeriodicalId":40516,"journal":{"name":"Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Philosophia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai Philosophia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24193/subbphil.2021.2s.03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

"My main objective in this article will be to compare Heidegger’s description of the way we perceive our environment in everyday coping – which is based on the concept of equipment (Zeug) – and James Gibson’s theory of affordance perception. More precisely, I will discuss whether equipment and affordance can be equated. In contrast to some interpretations, I will defend that they cannot: equipment and affordances refer to different ontological kinds and the perceptual or cognitive processes that are implied in each case have nothing in common. In addition, I will defend that distinguishing equipment and affordances is a key step towards a more comprehensive account of the way we perceive and deal with the possibilities offered by our environment, and that Heidegger’s and Gibson’s accounts, far from being mutually exclusive, complement each other. Some work has however to be done in order to articulate them in a coherent theoretical framework. Keywords: Heidegger, Gibson, affordance, equipment, perception "
海德格尔的装备vs.吉布森的支持。为什么他们不同,他们如何表达
我在这篇文章中的主要目的是比较海德格尔对我们在日常应对中感知环境的方式的描述——这是基于设备(Zeug)的概念——和詹姆斯·吉布森的能力感知理论。更准确地说,我将讨论设备和功能是否可以等同。与某些解释相反,我认为它们不能:设备和启示指的是不同的本体论类型,在每种情况下隐含的感知或认知过程没有任何共同点。此外,我将捍卫区分设备和支持是迈向更全面地描述我们感知和处理环境提供的可能性的方式的关键一步,海德格尔和吉布森的描述远非相互排斥,而是相互补充。然而,为了在一个连贯的理论框架中阐明它们,还需要做一些工作。关键词:海德格尔,吉布森,供给,设备,感知
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
20
×
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