Abstract
AbstractIn search of our highest capacities, cognitive scientists aim to explain things like mathematics, language, and planning (and while explaining them, they often imagine computers at work). 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 (2002) 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.
Funder
Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Gobierno de España
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Cognitive Neuroscience,Philosophy
Reference115 articles.
1. Abram, D. (2012). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world. New York: Vintage.
2. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway. Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
3. Barrett, N. F. (2017). The normative turn in enactive theory: An examination of its roots and implications. Topoi, 36(3), 431–443.
4. Benjamin, J. (1988). The Bonds of Love. Psychoanalysis, Feminism and the Problem of Domination. New York: Pantheon Press.
5. Bickhard, M. H. (2016). Inter- and En-activism: Some thoughts and comparisons. New Ideas in Psychology, 41, 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.newideapsych.2015.12.002.
Cited by
77 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献