书评:当前记忆哲学的争论

IF 1.4 2区 心理学 Q1 CULTURAL STUDIES
Marta Caravà
{"title":"书评:当前记忆哲学的争论","authors":"Marta Caravà","doi":"10.1177/17506980231176043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Current Controversies in Philosophy of Memory is a specialist book that aims to offer to researchers, teachers and students an ‘up-to-date discussion of some of the main theories, arguments, and problems’ in the philosophy of memory (p. 3). To this end, the editors have selected only contributions on episodic memory, that is, the ability to remember past events or experiences. In my view, this selective focus is reasonable and justified. There is increasing interest in episodic memory in philosophy, but several important questions have not received enough attention in the growing literature on the topic. This book investigates some of these previously underexplored questions, each addressed by two authors offering different perspectives on them. In addition to the editors’ introduction, which carefully contextualises these questions in the broader literature, the book has six parts, each including two chapters, a list of further readings and a final section with study questions. Part 1 of the volume addresses the question: What is the relationship between memory and imagination? This question is central to the debate between two prominent theories of memory: the causal theory and the simulation theory. The causal theory holds that remembering requires a causal connection to a past event via a memory trace – a brain modification caused by an experience – while the simulation theory claims that this requirement is not necessary. Because of their different takes on this causal requirement, the causal theory is usually associated with the idea that memory and imagination are two different things, while the simulation theory is associated with the idea that remembering is a form of imagining. Part I evaluates whether this presentation of this debate is accurate. In chapter 1, Peter Langland-Hassan uses the notion of constructive imagination to investigate the constraints that different types of memory traces impose on remembering. He explains how, by adopting the prop theory of memory traces, we can explain remembering as a form of constructive imagination while endorsing the causal theory. César Schirmer dos Santos, Christopher McCarroll and André Sant’Anna take a different stance on this debate (chapter 2). They claim that it is not all about descriptions of the mechanisms of remembering but is rather prescriptive in character: it is about the right concepts we should use to track memory and imagination. According to the authors, whether memory and imagination are the same thing depends on the prescriptive concepts of memory and imagination we endorse. These chapters do not solve the current debate on the relationship between memory and imagination but certainly advance it. They show that so far it has implied too sharp distinctions between the causal theory and the simulation theory and that, with proper conceptual analysis, we can identify what is at stake in this debate more clearly. 1176043 MSS0010.1177/17506980231176043Memory StudiesBook reviews book-review2023","PeriodicalId":47104,"journal":{"name":"Memory Studies","volume":"16 1","pages":"1020 - 1023"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Book review: Current Controversies in Philosophy of Memory\",\"authors\":\"Marta Caravà\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17506980231176043\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Current Controversies in Philosophy of Memory is a specialist book that aims to offer to researchers, teachers and students an ‘up-to-date discussion of some of the main theories, arguments, and problems’ in the philosophy of memory (p. 3). To this end, the editors have selected only contributions on episodic memory, that is, the ability to remember past events or experiences. In my view, this selective focus is reasonable and justified. There is increasing interest in episodic memory in philosophy, but several important questions have not received enough attention in the growing literature on the topic. This book investigates some of these previously underexplored questions, each addressed by two authors offering different perspectives on them. In addition to the editors’ introduction, which carefully contextualises these questions in the broader literature, the book has six parts, each including two chapters, a list of further readings and a final section with study questions. Part 1 of the volume addresses the question: What is the relationship between memory and imagination? This question is central to the debate between two prominent theories of memory: the causal theory and the simulation theory. The causal theory holds that remembering requires a causal connection to a past event via a memory trace – a brain modification caused by an experience – while the simulation theory claims that this requirement is not necessary. Because of their different takes on this causal requirement, the causal theory is usually associated with the idea that memory and imagination are two different things, while the simulation theory is associated with the idea that remembering is a form of imagining. Part I evaluates whether this presentation of this debate is accurate. In chapter 1, Peter Langland-Hassan uses the notion of constructive imagination to investigate the constraints that different types of memory traces impose on remembering. He explains how, by adopting the prop theory of memory traces, we can explain remembering as a form of constructive imagination while endorsing the causal theory. César Schirmer dos Santos, Christopher McCarroll and André Sant’Anna take a different stance on this debate (chapter 2). They claim that it is not all about descriptions of the mechanisms of remembering but is rather prescriptive in character: it is about the right concepts we should use to track memory and imagination. According to the authors, whether memory and imagination are the same thing depends on the prescriptive concepts of memory and imagination we endorse. These chapters do not solve the current debate on the relationship between memory and imagination but certainly advance it. They show that so far it has implied too sharp distinctions between the causal theory and the simulation theory and that, with proper conceptual analysis, we can identify what is at stake in this debate more clearly. 1176043 MSS0010.1177/17506980231176043Memory StudiesBook reviews book-review2023\",\"PeriodicalId\":47104,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Memory Studies\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"1020 - 1023\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Memory Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980231176043\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Memory Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17506980231176043","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《记忆哲学中的当前争论》是一本专业书籍,旨在为研究人员、教师和学生提供记忆哲学中“一些主要理论、论点和问题的最新讨论”(第3页)。为此,编辑们只选择了关于情景记忆的贡献,即记住过去事件或经历的能力。在我看来,这种选择性的关注是合理和正当的。哲学中对情景记忆的兴趣越来越大,但是有几个重要的问题没有得到足够的关注。本书调查了这些以前未被充分探讨的问题,每个问题都由两位作者提供了不同的观点。除了编辑的引言,它仔细地将这些问题置于更广泛的文献中,这本书有六个部分,每个部分包括两章,一个进一步阅读的清单和一个研究问题的最后部分。这本书的第一部分回答了这个问题:记忆和想象之间的关系是什么?这个问题是两个著名的记忆理论:因果理论和模拟理论之间争论的核心。因果理论认为,记忆需要通过记忆痕迹(一种由经历引起的大脑修改)与过去的事件建立因果联系,而模拟理论则声称这一要求是不必要的。因为他们对因果要求的不同理解,因果理论通常与记忆和想象是两码事的观点联系在一起,而模拟理论则与记忆是一种想象的观点联系在一起。第一部分评估这一辩论的表述是否准确。在第一章中,彼得·朗兰-哈桑使用建设性想象的概念来研究不同类型的记忆痕迹对记忆的限制。他解释说,通过采用记忆痕迹的prop理论,我们可以在支持因果理论的同时,将记忆解释为一种建设性想象的形式。csamar Schirmer dos Santos、Christopher McCarroll和andr Sant’anna在这场争论中持不同的立场(第二章)。他们声称,这并不完全是关于记忆机制的描述,而是在本质上是规定性的:这是关于我们应该用来追踪记忆和想象的正确概念。根据作者的说法,记忆和想象是否是同一件事取决于我们认可的记忆和想象的规范性概念。这些章节并没有解决当前关于记忆和想象之间关系的争论,但肯定会推进这一争论。他们表明,到目前为止,它暗示了因果理论和模拟理论之间过于明显的区别,通过适当的概念分析,我们可以更清楚地确定这场辩论的利害关系。1176043 mss0010 .1177/17506980231176043记忆研究书评书评2023
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Book review: Current Controversies in Philosophy of Memory
Current Controversies in Philosophy of Memory is a specialist book that aims to offer to researchers, teachers and students an ‘up-to-date discussion of some of the main theories, arguments, and problems’ in the philosophy of memory (p. 3). To this end, the editors have selected only contributions on episodic memory, that is, the ability to remember past events or experiences. In my view, this selective focus is reasonable and justified. There is increasing interest in episodic memory in philosophy, but several important questions have not received enough attention in the growing literature on the topic. This book investigates some of these previously underexplored questions, each addressed by two authors offering different perspectives on them. In addition to the editors’ introduction, which carefully contextualises these questions in the broader literature, the book has six parts, each including two chapters, a list of further readings and a final section with study questions. Part 1 of the volume addresses the question: What is the relationship between memory and imagination? This question is central to the debate between two prominent theories of memory: the causal theory and the simulation theory. The causal theory holds that remembering requires a causal connection to a past event via a memory trace – a brain modification caused by an experience – while the simulation theory claims that this requirement is not necessary. Because of their different takes on this causal requirement, the causal theory is usually associated with the idea that memory and imagination are two different things, while the simulation theory is associated with the idea that remembering is a form of imagining. Part I evaluates whether this presentation of this debate is accurate. In chapter 1, Peter Langland-Hassan uses the notion of constructive imagination to investigate the constraints that different types of memory traces impose on remembering. He explains how, by adopting the prop theory of memory traces, we can explain remembering as a form of constructive imagination while endorsing the causal theory. César Schirmer dos Santos, Christopher McCarroll and André Sant’Anna take a different stance on this debate (chapter 2). They claim that it is not all about descriptions of the mechanisms of remembering but is rather prescriptive in character: it is about the right concepts we should use to track memory and imagination. According to the authors, whether memory and imagination are the same thing depends on the prescriptive concepts of memory and imagination we endorse. These chapters do not solve the current debate on the relationship between memory and imagination but certainly advance it. They show that so far it has implied too sharp distinctions between the causal theory and the simulation theory and that, with proper conceptual analysis, we can identify what is at stake in this debate more clearly. 1176043 MSS0010.1177/17506980231176043Memory StudiesBook reviews book-review2023
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
Memory Studies
Memory Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
18.20%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Memory Studies is an international peer reviewed journal. Memory Studies affords recognition, form, and direction to work in this nascent field, and provides a critical forum for dialogue and debate on the theoretical, empirical, and methodological issues central to a collaborative understanding of memory today. Memory Studies examines the social, cultural, cognitive, political and technological shifts affecting how, what and why individuals, groups and societies remember, and forget. The journal responds to and seeks to shape public and academic discourse on the nature, manipulation, and contestation of memory in the contemporary era.
×
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