Latest additions
Dixon, Daisy. Artistic (Counter) Speech
2022, The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 80(4): 409-419
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Ten-Herng Lai & Chong-Ming LimAbstract:
Some visual artworks constitute hate speech because they can perform oppressive illocutionary acts. This illocution-based analysis of art reveals how responsive curation and artmaking undermines and manages problematic art. Drawing on the notion of counterspeech as an alternative tool to censorship to handle art-based hate speech, this article proposes aesthetic blocking and aesthetic spotlighting. I then show that under certain conditions, this can lead to eventual metaphysical destruction of the artwork; a way to destroy harmful art without physically destroying it.Comment (from this Blueprint): This paper can be used for discussions of how artistic interventions can constitute counter-speech to commemorative speech.
Burch-Brown, Joanna. Should Slavery’s Statues be Preserved? On Transitional Justice and Contested Heritage
2022, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 39(5): 807-824
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Ten-Herng Lai & Chong-Ming LimAbstract:
What should we do with statues and place-names memorializing people who committed human-rights abuses linked to slavery and postslavery racism? In this article, I draw on UN principles of transitional justice to address this question. I propose that a successful approach should meet principles of transitional justice recognized by the United Nations, including affirming rights to justice, truth, reparations, and guarantees of nonrecurrence of human rights violations. I discuss four strategies for handling contested heritage, examining strengths and weaknesses of each strategy. Examples from Bristol, England, highlight common challenges and positive lessons.Comment (from this Blueprint): This paper deploys principles of transitional justice to review the payoffs of different approaches to objectionable commemorations.
Maibom, Heidi. The Space Between: How Empathy Really Works
2022,
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Jimena ClavelPublisher’s Note:
The Space Between argues that empathy makes us less, not more, biased, contrary to what many seem to think. How? The fact is that a person sits in the center of a web of relationships with her body, her environment, her interests, and other people. These relationships shape how she thinks about herself and the world around her, what she needs, what she wants, and what she values. This is a perspective. We each have one. It represents the significance of the world to us. At the same time, it ignores what matters to others and how or what we are to them. Taking another person’s perspective is a way of reorienting that egocentric image so that it centers on someone else. Relying on empirical evidence from psychology and neuroscience, philosopher Heidi Maibom argues that although a perspective is unique to a person in some ways, it nonetheless possesses characteristics common to all perspectives. This commonality enables us to use our own first-person perspective to represent what matters to others, by imagining that we are at the center of their web of relationships. It also helps reveal who we actually are. It is this form of shifting perspectives that is at the core of impartiality, Maibom argues, and not the cold, scientific eye of so-called objectivity. Why? Because perspectives are ineliminable. A point of view is always a point of view, only an “objective” one leaves out many of the things that matter to human beings.Comment: This book discusses what empathy is, as well as its value in the face of a series of criticisms that have been advanced against it. It can be used in a course on moral psychology, philosophy of imagination, or philosophy of emotions to discuss empathy.
Gangopadhyay, Nivedita. Experiential Blindness Revisited: In Defence of a Case of Embodied Cognition
2010, Cognitive Systems Research 11(4): 396-407.
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Jimena Clavel, Contributed by: Jimena ClavelAbstract:
The sensorimotor theory (Noë, 2004, Noë, in press) discusses a special instance of lack of perceptual experience despite no sensory impairment. The phenomenon dubbed “experiential blindness” is cited as evidence for a constitutive relation between sensorimotor skills and perceptual experience. Recently it has been objected (Adams and Aizawa, 2008, Aizawa, 2007) that the cases described by Noë as experiential blindness are cases of pure sensory deficit. This paper argues that while the objections bring out limitations of Noë’s sensorimotor theory they do not do enough to challenge a robust perception–action interdependence claim. There are genuine cases of experiential blindness and these are better explained by the hypothesis of the interdependence of perception and action rather than by a passive vision approach. The cases provide support for a strong thesis of embodied cognition where ongoing sensorimotor dynamics non-trivially constrain perceptual content.
Comment: The paper discusses the sensorimotor theory of perception. It can be used as further reading in an advanced course in philosophy of mind or philosophy of perception.
Rorty, Amelie Oksenberg. Explaining Emotions
1978, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 75, issue 3
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Jimena ClavelAbstract:
Sometimes our emotions change straightaway when we learn that what we believed is not true. The grieving husband recovers when he learns that, because she missed her plane, his wife did not die in the fatal plane crash. But often changes in emotions do not appropriately follow changes in belief. Their tenacity, their inertia, suggests that there is akrasia of the emotions; it reveals the complex structure of their intentionality.'Comment: In this paper, Rorty discusses the complexity of the intentionality of emotions by focusing on the phenomenon of akrasia. The paper can be included in a session on the recalcitrance of emotions or on the intentionality of emotions. The paper can be listed as recommended reading for an advance undergraduate course or as mandatory for a graduate course.
Robinson, Jenefer. Startle
1995, The Journal of Philosophy, XCII, No. 2
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Jimena ClavelAbstract:
Philosophers tend to take very sophisticated and culture bound emotions as their paradigms for emotion in general. So Gilbert Ryle discusses an interest in symbolic logic; William Lyons discusses being awestruck by the beauty of a golden eagle; Patricia Greenspan talks about being warily suspicious of an insurance salesman; and Robert Gordon talks about being embar rassed about the publicity for one's wedding.' Psychologists, on the other hand, tend to stick to very different examples; several of them have studied the startle reaction as an example of an emo tion, a suggestion most philosophers would consider laughable. I shall argue that startle does belong on the spectrum of emotional response, and that indeed, if we abstract from the startle response, we can come up with a useful model of emotional response in general.Comment: This paper develops a non-cognitive theory of emotions. Robinson begins with a characterization of 'startle' as an emotional reaction. She then generalizes from these characteristics to a more general theory of emotions and emotional reactions. The paper is a helpful introduction to non-cognitive theories of emotions. It is a nice piece to contrast cognitive and non-cognitive theories that focuses on a specific emotion.
Lugones, María. Playfulness, “World”-Travelling, and Loving Perception
1987, Hypatia 2(2): 3-19
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Jimena ClavelAbstract:
A paper about cross-cultural and cross-racial loving that emphasizes the need to understand and affirm the plurality in and among women as central to feminist ontology and epistemology. Love is seen not as fusion and erasure of difference but as incompatible with them. Love reveals plurality. Unity -not to be confused with solidarity - is understood as conceptually tied to domination.Comment: This paper discusses the epistemic position of marginalized identities. It can be discussed in a course on feminist philosophy or on social epistemology. It can also be helpful to connect discussions between feminist philosophy and empathy.
Rooney, Phyllis. What is Distinctive about Feminist Epistemology at 25?
2012, in Sharon L. Crasnow, and Anita M. Superson (eds), Out from the Shadows: Analytical Feminist Contributions to Traditional Philosophy, Studies in Feminist Philosophy. New York: Oxford Academic.
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Jimena ClavelAbstract:
Attempts to identify feminist epistemology by picking out particular topics or projects that supposedly all feminist epistemologists engage, or by focusing on specific claims or theories about knowledge (justification, objectivity) to which all or most feminist epistemologists subscribe, often end up mischaracterizing the field. I argue that what makes feminist epistemology distinctive, a quarter century into its development, is best determined by examining what makes mainstream epistemology still so distinctively non‐feminist. For example, feminist epistemology includes a critical examination of historical and contemporary forms of epistemic subordination and disempowerment that it seeks to bring out from the shadows of traditional theorizing in epistemology, that is, forms of exclusion or distancing of women and other “others” from domains, conceptions, and idealizations of knowledge and of epistemology. This feminist project, though it encompasses quite a range of specific inquiries, is distinctive to the extent that proponents of mainstream projects or perspectives in epistemology remain hostile to, dismissive of, or notably ignorant of it. Mainstream marginalizations and dismissals of feminist work are underwritten by distinctively limited understandings of specific features of epistemological theorizing that come to the fore in an examination of the relationship between feminist and mainstream work in epistemology. These features include: a recognition of the historical situatedness of epistemology; an appreciation of different types of relationships between epistemology and politics; the promotion of epistemological reflexivity; critical re-assessments of starting concepts and questions in epistemology; and recognition of important connections between epistemic normativity and moral or political normativity.Comment: The paper is this a good introduction to the overarching project of feminist epistemology. This chapter offers not only a review of the project of feminist epistemology, but also a critical overview of mainstream epistemology by examining the reception of the former by the latter. It also highlights the crucial contributions of feminist epistemology to epistemology, more widely. In addition to epistemology courses, it can also be a good addition to courses that aim to explore how philosophers have sought to transform canonical and traditional philosophy.
Boden, Margaret. Escaping from the Chinese Room
1988, reprinted in Mind Design III, John Haugeland, Carl Craver, and Colin Klein (eds), The MIT Press
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Alnica VisserAbstract:
John Searle, in his paper on 'Minds, Brains, and Programs' (1980), argues that computational theories in psychology are essentially worthless. He makes two main claims: that computational theories, being purely formal in nature, cannot possibly help us to understand mental processes; and that computer hardware-unlike neuroprotein-obviously lacks the right causal powers to generate mental processes. I shall argue that both these claims are mistaken.
Comment: Excellent summary of the Chinese Room argument along with some interesting objections. Can be used as a follow-up reading to Searle, but also in place of it.
Mitchell, Melanie. Why AI is Harder Than We Think
2023, in Mind Design III, John Haugeland, Carl Craver, and Colin Klein (eds). The MIT Press
-
Expand entry
-
Added by: Alnica VisserAbstract:
Since its beginning in the 1950s, the field of artificial intelligence has cycled several times between periods of optimistic predictions and massive investment (“AI spring”) and periods of disappointment, loss of confidence, and reduced funding (“AI winter”). Even with today’s seemingly fast pace of AI breakthroughs, the development of long-promised technologies such as self-driving cars, housekeeping robots, and conversational companions has turned out to be much harder than many people expected. One reason for these repeating cycles is our limited understanding of the nature and complexity of intelligence itself. In this paper I describe four fallacies in common assumptions made by AI researchers, which can lead to overconfident predictions about the field. I conclude by discussing the open questions spurred by these fallacies, including the age-old challenge of imbuing machines with humanlike common sense.
Comment: Short easy read. Pairs well with Turing, giving a good summary of the technological progress that has been made since the 50s along with a more pessimistic interpretation of the theoretical import of the progress.