{"title":"同理心。E. Stein和R. inggarden与认知心理学","authors":"T. Kakol","doi":"10.26881/maes.2019.1.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I compare (using as paradigmatic examples E. Stein and R. Ingarden) phenomenological theories of empathy (understood as “mind-reading”) with contemporary cognitivists’ approach to this issue, arguing that although they are prima facie incompatible, in fact they can be seen as complementary. Since empathy is indispensable in practice, a correct conceptualization of this topic is desirable.","PeriodicalId":230730,"journal":{"name":"Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Empathy. E. Stein and R. Ingarden vs. Cognitive Psychology\",\"authors\":\"T. Kakol\",\"doi\":\"10.26881/maes.2019.1.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper I compare (using as paradigmatic examples E. Stein and R. Ingarden) phenomenological theories of empathy (understood as “mind-reading”) with contemporary cognitivists’ approach to this issue, arguing that although they are prima facie incompatible, in fact they can be seen as complementary. Since empathy is indispensable in practice, a correct conceptualization of this topic is desirable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":230730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26881/maes.2019.1.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26881/maes.2019.1.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
On Empathy. E. Stein and R. Ingarden vs. Cognitive Psychology
In this paper I compare (using as paradigmatic examples E. Stein and R. Ingarden) phenomenological theories of empathy (understood as “mind-reading”) with contemporary cognitivists’ approach to this issue, arguing that although they are prima facie incompatible, in fact they can be seen as complementary. Since empathy is indispensable in practice, a correct conceptualization of this topic is desirable.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
