FiltersNEW

Hold ctrl / ⌘ to select more or unselect / Info

Topics

Languages

Traditions

Times (use negative numbers for BCE)

-

Medium:

Recommended use:

Difficulty:


Full textRead freeBlue print
De Jaegher, Hanne. Loving and knowing: reflections for an engaged epistemology
2019, Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 20(5), pp. 847-870
Topics:
Keywords:
Traditions:
Languages: English

Expand entry

Added by: Maria Jimena Clavel Vazquez
Abstract:
In search of our highest capacities, cognitive scientists aim to explain things like mathematics, language, and planning. But are these really our most sophisticated forms of knowing? In this paper, I point to a different pinnacle of cognition. Our most sophisticated human knowing, I think, lies in how we engage with each other, in our relating. Cognitive science and philosophy of mind have largely ignored the ways of knowing at play here. At the same time, the emphasis on discrete, rational knowing to the detriment of engaged, human knowing pervades societal practices and institutions, often with harmful effects on people and their relations. There are many reasons why we need a new, engaged - or even engaging - epistemology of human knowing. The enactive theory of participatory sense-making takes steps towards this, but it needs deepening. Kym Maclaren's idea of letting be invites such a deepening. Characterizing knowing as a relationship of letting be provides a nuanced way to deal with the tensions between the knower's being and the being of the known, as they meet in the process of knowing-and-being-known. This meeting of knower and known is not easy to understand. However, there is a mode of relating in which we know it well, and that is: in loving relationships. I propose to look at human knowing through the lens of loving. We then see that both knowing and loving are existential, dialectic ways in which concrete and particular beings engage with each other.
Comment: available in this Blueprint
Difficulty: Intermediate
Recommended use: Specialised

View this text on PhilPapers

Full text
Langton, Rae, Lewis, David. Defining ‘Intrinsic’
1998, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 58(2): 333-345.
Topics: Properties Propositions and Relations
Keywords: intrinsic and extrinsic properties; relations
Traditions: Analytic; European
Languages: English

Expand entry

Added by: Emily Paul
Summary: Something could be round even if it were the only thing in the universe, unaccompanied by anything distinct from itself. Jaegwon Kim once suggested that we define an intrinsic property as one that can belong to something unaccompanied. Wrong: unaccompaniment itself is not intrinsic, yet it can belong to something unaccompanied. But there is a better Kim-style definition. Say that P is independent of accompaniment iff four different cases are possible: something accompanied may have P or lack P, something unaccompanied may have P or lack P. P is basic intrinsic iff (1) P and not-P are nondisjunctive and contingent, and (2) P is independent of accompaniment. Two things (actual or possible) are duplicates iff they have exactly the same basic intrinsic properties. P is intrinsic iff no two duplicates differ with respect to P.
Comment: This would be a suitable further reading for a unit on intrinsic and extrinsic properties (e.g. something that students could use for essay research). This is because it delves deeper into our concept of 'intrinsic', and students would first need to discuss a 'standard' definition as a core text and in the lecture.
Difficulty: Advanced, Intermediate
Recommended use: Specialised

View this text on PhilPapers

Can’t find it?
Contribute the texts you think should be here and we’ll add them soon!