重要的注意

S. Walter
{"title":"重要的注意","authors":"S. Walter","doi":"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.16","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I offer some critical thoughts on some philosophical issues touched upon in the four papers in the section on Cognition, Action, and Perception. I highlight these issues because, apart from revealing some problematic aspects of the arguments presented therein, they illustrate a general concern about some prominent debates in the context of 4E approaches to cognition: that at some times we are so excited that we can bring philosophy in close touch with empirical results that we forget our core business as philosophers—the argument—while at other times we can’t stop overdoing it with our philosophical concept-mongery and thereby fail to see important lessons empirical results have to teach us. In addition, I want to draw attention to a topic that one might have expected to be covered in a handbook on 4E cognition, in particular in the section on Cognition, Action, and Perception, but that isn’t addressed: the topic of self-control.","PeriodicalId":395651,"journal":{"name":"The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition","volume":"83 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Note\",\"authors\":\"S. Walter\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.16\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"I offer some critical thoughts on some philosophical issues touched upon in the four papers in the section on Cognition, Action, and Perception. I highlight these issues because, apart from revealing some problematic aspects of the arguments presented therein, they illustrate a general concern about some prominent debates in the context of 4E approaches to cognition: that at some times we are so excited that we can bring philosophy in close touch with empirical results that we forget our core business as philosophers—the argument—while at other times we can’t stop overdoing it with our philosophical concept-mongery and thereby fail to see important lessons empirical results have to teach us. In addition, I want to draw attention to a topic that one might have expected to be covered in a handbook on 4E cognition, in particular in the section on Cognition, Action, and Perception, but that isn’t addressed: the topic of self-control.\",\"PeriodicalId\":395651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.16\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198735410.013.16","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在认知、行动和感知部分,我对四篇论文中涉及的一些哲学问题提出了一些批判性的看法。我之所以强调这些问题,是因为除了揭示其中提出的论点的一些有问题的方面外,它们还说明了对4E认知方法背景下一些突出争论的普遍关注:有时,我们太兴奋了,因为我们可以把哲学与实证结果紧密联系起来,以至于我们忘记了作为哲学家的核心业务——论证;而在其他时候,我们又不能停止过度使用我们的哲学概念——混杂,从而看不到实证结果必须教给我们的重要教训。此外,我想提请注意一个主题,人们可能期望在4E认知手册中涵盖,特别是在认知,行动和感知部分,但这并没有解决:自我控制的主题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Critical Note
I offer some critical thoughts on some philosophical issues touched upon in the four papers in the section on Cognition, Action, and Perception. I highlight these issues because, apart from revealing some problematic aspects of the arguments presented therein, they illustrate a general concern about some prominent debates in the context of 4E approaches to cognition: that at some times we are so excited that we can bring philosophy in close touch with empirical results that we forget our core business as philosophers—the argument—while at other times we can’t stop overdoing it with our philosophical concept-mongery and thereby fail to see important lessons empirical results have to teach us. In addition, I want to draw attention to a topic that one might have expected to be covered in a handbook on 4E cognition, in particular in the section on Cognition, Action, and Perception, but that isn’t addressed: the topic of self-control.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信