人类思维进化的两步理论

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Glenda Satne
{"title":"人类思维进化的两步理论","authors":"Glenda Satne","doi":"10.1515/jso-2015-0053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Social accounts of objective content, like the one advanced by Tomasello (2014), are traditionally challenged by an ‘essential tension’ (Hutto and Satne 2015). The tension is the following: while sociality is deemed to be at the basis of thinking, in order to explain sociality, some form of thinking seems to be necessarily presupposed. In this contribution I analyse Tomasello’s two-step theory of the evolution of human thinking vis-à-vis this challenge. While his theory is in principle suited to address it, I claim that the specifics of the first step and the notion of perspective that infuse it are problematic in this regard. I end by briefly sketching an alternative.","PeriodicalId":37042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Ontology","volume":"2 1","pages":"105 - 116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jso-2015-0053","citationCount":"12","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Two-Step Theory of the Evolution of Human Thinking\",\"authors\":\"Glenda Satne\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/jso-2015-0053\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Social accounts of objective content, like the one advanced by Tomasello (2014), are traditionally challenged by an ‘essential tension’ (Hutto and Satne 2015). The tension is the following: while sociality is deemed to be at the basis of thinking, in order to explain sociality, some form of thinking seems to be necessarily presupposed. In this contribution I analyse Tomasello’s two-step theory of the evolution of human thinking vis-à-vis this challenge. While his theory is in principle suited to address it, I claim that the specifics of the first step and the notion of perspective that infuse it are problematic in this regard. I end by briefly sketching an alternative.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37042,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social Ontology\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"105 - 116\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1515/jso-2015-0053\",\"citationCount\":\"12\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social Ontology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/jso-2015-0053\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Ontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/jso-2015-0053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

摘要

客观内容的社会描述,如托马塞洛(2014)提出的,传统上受到“本质张力”的挑战(Hutto和Satne, 2015)。这种矛盾是这样的:当社会性被认为是思维的基础时,为了解释社会性,某种形式的思维似乎必然是预设的。在这篇文章中,我分析了托马塞洛关于人类思维进化的两步理论,以应对-à-vis这一挑战。虽然他的理论在原则上适合解决这个问题,但我认为,第一步的具体内容和注入其中的观点在这方面是有问题的。最后,我简要概述了另一种选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Two-Step Theory of the Evolution of Human Thinking
Abstract Social accounts of objective content, like the one advanced by Tomasello (2014), are traditionally challenged by an ‘essential tension’ (Hutto and Satne 2015). The tension is the following: while sociality is deemed to be at the basis of thinking, in order to explain sociality, some form of thinking seems to be necessarily presupposed. In this contribution I analyse Tomasello’s two-step theory of the evolution of human thinking vis-à-vis this challenge. While his theory is in principle suited to address it, I claim that the specifics of the first step and the notion of perspective that infuse it are problematic in this regard. I end by briefly sketching an alternative.
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
Journal of Social Ontology
Journal of Social Ontology Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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