论数字空间中的意向性与动机

IF 0.8 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal Pub Date : 2018-12-01 DOI:10.3167/DT.2018.050206

Max Halupka

{"title":"论数字空间中的意向性与动机","authors":"Max Halupka","doi":"10.3167/DT.2018.050206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Wood and Flinders posit that intentionality and motivation\nare critical sites of analysis when determining whether an act is, or should\nbe made out to be, political or apolitical. I agree with this assertion—both\nthe intention behind an actor’s act, for example, what motivates the action,\nmust be taken into consideration before such classifications are made. Yet,\nintentionality and motivation are more complicated and problematic than\nthe authors make them out to be—especially online.","PeriodicalId":42255,"journal":{"name":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050206","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Intentionality and Motivation in Digital Spaces\",\"authors\":\"Max Halupka\",\"doi\":\"10.3167/DT.2018.050206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Wood and Flinders posit that intentionality and motivation\\nare critical sites of analysis when determining whether an act is, or should\\nbe made out to be, political or apolitical. I agree with this assertion—both\\nthe intention behind an actor’s act, for example, what motivates the action,\\nmust be taken into consideration before such classifications are made. Yet,\\nintentionality and motivation are more complicated and problematic than\\nthe authors make them out to be—especially online.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42255,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3167/DT.2018.050206\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3167/DT.2018.050206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

伍德和弗林德斯认为，在决定一项行为是或应该是政治性的还是非政治性的时候，意旨和动机是分析的关键场所。我同意这个断言——例如，在进行分类之前，必须考虑演员行为背后的意图，以及行为的动机。然而，意向性和动机比作者描述的更复杂、更有问题——尤其是在网上。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

On Intentionality and Motivation in Digital Spaces

Wood and Flinders posit that intentionality and motivation are critical sites of analysis when determining whether an act is, or should be made out to be, political or apolitical. I agree with this assertion—both the intention behind an actor’s act, for example, what motivates the action, must be taken into consideration before such classifications are made. Yet, intentionality and motivation are more complicated and problematic than the authors make them out to be—especially online.

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

Democratic Theory-An Interdisciplinary Journal POLITICAL SCIENCE-

CiteScore

4.00

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Democratic Theory is a peer-reviewed journal published and distributed by Berghahn. It encourages philosophical and interdisciplinary contributions that critically explore democratic theory—in all its forms. Spanning a range of views, the journal offers a cross-disciplinary forum for diverse theoretical questions to be put forward and systematically examined. It advances non-Western as well as Western ideas and is actively based on the premise that there are many forms of democracies and many types of democrats. As a forum for debate, the journal challenges theorists to ask and answer the perennial questions that plague the field of democratization studies: Why is democracy so prominent in the world today? What is the meaning of democracy? Will democracy continue to expand? Are current forms of democracy sufficient to give voice to “the people” in an increasingly fragmented and divided world? Who leads in democracy? What types of non-Western democratic theories are there? Should democrats always defend democracy? Should democrats be fearful of de-democratization, post-democracies, and the rise of hybridized regimes?