疯狂的身份I:有争议的和失败的身份

M. Rashed
{"title":"疯狂的身份I:有争议的和失败的身份","authors":"M. Rashed","doi":"10.1093/MED/9780198786863.003.0007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter, “Mad identity I: Controversial and failed identities,” examines the viability of Mad identity as a route to recognition. It develops a distinction between “controversial” and “failed” identities; the former are cases where subjects are wrong about who they think they are but where this can potentially call for revision of the collective category with which they identify, and the latter are cases where subjects are wrong about who they think they are but where this cannot call for such revision. Only identity claims that are judged to be “controversial” can be considered within the scope of recognition. Using four examples of “delusional” identities, the chapter develops an epistemological framework for distinguishing failed from controversial identities, a framework where the notion of “truth value” plays a key role.","PeriodicalId":222338,"journal":{"name":"Madness and the demand for recognition","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mad identity I: Controversial and failed identities\",\"authors\":\"M. Rashed\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/MED/9780198786863.003.0007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter, “Mad identity I: Controversial and failed identities,” examines the viability of Mad identity as a route to recognition. It develops a distinction between “controversial” and “failed” identities; the former are cases where subjects are wrong about who they think they are but where this can potentially call for revision of the collective category with which they identify, and the latter are cases where subjects are wrong about who they think they are but where this cannot call for such revision. Only identity claims that are judged to be “controversial” can be considered within the scope of recognition. Using four examples of “delusional” identities, the chapter develops an epistemological framework for distinguishing failed from controversial identities, a framework where the notion of “truth value” plays a key role.\",\"PeriodicalId\":222338,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Madness and the demand for recognition\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Madness and the demand for recognition\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/MED/9780198786863.003.0007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Madness and the demand for recognition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/MED/9780198786863.003.0007","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

这一章,“疯狂的身份I:有争议的和失败的身份”,考察了疯狂身份作为一种认可途径的可行性。它区分了“有争议的”和“失败的”身份;在前一种情况下,受试者对自己是谁的认识是错误的,但这可能需要对他们所认同的集体类别进行修正,而在后一种情况下,受试者对自己是谁的认识是错误的,但这并不需要进行修正。只有被认定为“有争议”的身份主张才被认为属于承认范围。本章使用四个“妄想”身份的例子,发展了一个认识论框架,用于区分失败的身份和有争议的身份,在这个框架中,“真值”的概念起着关键作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mad identity I: Controversial and failed identities
This chapter, “Mad identity I: Controversial and failed identities,” examines the viability of Mad identity as a route to recognition. It develops a distinction between “controversial” and “failed” identities; the former are cases where subjects are wrong about who they think they are but where this can potentially call for revision of the collective category with which they identify, and the latter are cases where subjects are wrong about who they think they are but where this cannot call for such revision. Only identity claims that are judged to be “controversial” can be considered within the scope of recognition. Using four examples of “delusional” identities, the chapter develops an epistemological framework for distinguishing failed from controversial identities, a framework where the notion of “truth value” plays a key role.
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