模拟理解精神疾病的局限性:为斯坦的共情理论辩护

Andrew Molas
{"title":"模拟理解精神疾病的局限性:为斯坦的共情理论辩护","authors":"Andrew Molas","doi":"10.1017/S0012217322000270","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I defend Edith Stein's theory of empathy as an alternative to simulation theories of empathy. Simulation theories of empathy involve using one's own cognitive resources to replicate the mental states of others by imagining being in their situation. I argue that this understanding of empathy is problematic within the context of mental healthcare because it can lead to the co-opting and assimilation of another person's experiences. In response, I maintain that Stein's theory is preferable because it involves appreciating others’ experiences as it is for them, and this alternative account of empathy avoids the assimilation of the experiences of others.","PeriodicalId":84592,"journal":{"name":"Diarrhoea Dialogue","volume":"25 1","pages":"395 - 405"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Limits of Simulation for Understanding Mental Illness: Defending a Steinian Theory of Empathy\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Molas\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0012217322000270\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract I defend Edith Stein's theory of empathy as an alternative to simulation theories of empathy. Simulation theories of empathy involve using one's own cognitive resources to replicate the mental states of others by imagining being in their situation. I argue that this understanding of empathy is problematic within the context of mental healthcare because it can lead to the co-opting and assimilation of another person's experiences. In response, I maintain that Stein's theory is preferable because it involves appreciating others’ experiences as it is for them, and this alternative account of empathy avoids the assimilation of the experiences of others.\",\"PeriodicalId\":84592,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Diarrhoea Dialogue\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"395 - 405\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Diarrhoea Dialogue\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217322000270\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diarrhoea Dialogue","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217322000270","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

伊迪丝·斯坦的共情理论是模拟共情理论的替代理论。同理心的模拟理论包括利用自己的认知资源,通过想象自己处于他人的处境来复制他人的心理状态。我认为,在精神卫生保健的背景下,这种对同理心的理解是有问题的,因为它可能导致吸收和同化另一个人的经历。作为回应,我坚持认为斯坦因的理论更可取,因为它涉及到欣赏他人的经历,而这种同理心的替代解释避免了对他人经历的同化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Limits of Simulation for Understanding Mental Illness: Defending a Steinian Theory of Empathy
Abstract I defend Edith Stein's theory of empathy as an alternative to simulation theories of empathy. Simulation theories of empathy involve using one's own cognitive resources to replicate the mental states of others by imagining being in their situation. I argue that this understanding of empathy is problematic within the context of mental healthcare because it can lead to the co-opting and assimilation of another person's experiences. In response, I maintain that Stein's theory is preferable because it involves appreciating others’ experiences as it is for them, and this alternative account of empathy avoids the assimilation of the experiences of others.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信