March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010
August 2010
September 2010 October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 May 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30
31
News Every Day |

Our Pragmatic Present

Mind in Nature: John Dewey, Cognitive Science, and a Naturalistic Philosophy for Living by Mark Johnson and Jay Schulkin; The MIT Press, 288 pp., $60.00

 There is a passage in Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Nature—published in 1836—that has, until recently, always puzzled me. Emerson writes that his age would witness a strange philosophical transition, namely that, the “ancient precept, ‘Know thyself,’ and the modern precept, ‘Study nature,’ become at last one maxim.” But after I read Mark Johnson and Jay Shulkin’s Mind in Nature, a new volume on philosophy and cognitive science, Emerson began to make a bit more sense.

In 1858, Darwin published On the Origin of Species, suggesting that who we are—as human beings—connects directly to our biological origins. Coming to terms with this biology, Darwin thought, was crucial to our ability to understand ourselves. Then in 1925, the American pragmatist John Dewey completed Experience and Nature, a work that Johnson and Schulkin see as “one of the greatest philosophical works ever written.” Why? Because Dewey explained, perhaps for the first time, with scientific rigor and philosophical sophistication, how humans like us make meaning and develop our minds by interacting with the natural world.

Dewey suggests that we look as closely as we can at the structure of experience. When we do that, we will notice that meaning, far from being merely abstract, linguistic, and conceptual, is, from top to bottom, emotional, aesthetic, and embodied. We are, to use the Deweyan expression, “live creatures” who feel, grow, act, laugh, thrive, cry, die, make love, dance, and create. Although not necessarily in that order. If all of that sounds anti-philosophical or conceptually boring, that is only because the history of Western philosophy has been built on the philosopher’s fallacy of confusing our living, breathing realities with concepts that try, and fail, to explain these realities. Life and embodied meaning are richer and more complex and confusing than any mind-as-machine model that might threaten to overtake our present day. This is at least one of the primary lessons of Mind in Nature.

Johnson, the Knight Professor of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Oregon, and Schulkin, a research professor at the University of Washington’s College of Medicine, have made two very long, very distinguished careers of defending this position. In Metaphors We Live By (1980), written with John Lakoff, Johnson points out that our conventional conceptual metaphors, which underpin everyday language, involve sensory, motor, and affective aspects of our experience. For example, there is a dominant conceptual metaphor ‘Understanding Is Seeing,’ in which we conceptualize abstract thinking as a process of seeing. From an evolutionary perspective, it makes sense that we might recruit our basic bodily (sensory-motor-affective-social) experience to think and reason about some abstract domain, such as mind, thought, will, knowledge, and reasoning. Today, Metaphors We Live By is a classic that has sold more than a million copies. And during his more than 40-year career, Schulkin has produced some 700 articles and presentations, and his work is so respected that is has been cited by other researchers 24,000 times.

Why do these biographies matter? Because these two scholars, both in the twilight of their careers, still seem to believe that Dewey and a naturalized way of seeing the world needs a viable defense. In Mind and Nature, they set out Deweyan naturalism in simple, yet powerful terms:

By a naturalistic philosophy, we mean the view that everything that exists is part of nature, which thereby encompasses all of the natural processes by which things and events come into, persist for a time through, and pass out of existence. A naturalistic philosophy employs empirical methods of inquiry and explanation that have no need to postulate supernatural or transcendent agents, entities, causes, or forces.

This is a fairly accurate thumbnail of the metaphysical and epistemological commitments expressed in Experience and Nature, but also a thumbnail that explains, in large part, why Dewey’s philosophy has had trouble gaining traction in a polarized and ideologically fraught world. Many people believe in science and eschew dogma, but these selfsame people have a nagging desire to believe in transcendent agents, entities, causes, and forces. And then, of course, there are those who dismiss science and embrace dogma.

But our present moment may be the right time to bring Dewey fully back to life. As Johnson and Schulkin observe, the demand for a clear-eyed assessment of our deeply human (and, I will add, tragic) condition, seems well fitted to a time besieged by the plague and compounded by political and social strife. Transcendental pixy dust might sound appealing at first, a quick fix for a broken world, but it doesn’t seem to be working particularly well. Our culture remains painfully broken, in no small part because we remain committed to different and mutually exclusive forms of pixy dust.

The Deweyan account, by contrast, seems honest to the facts of the natural world and to the facts of human nature: we are all living creatures struggling, not necessarily for survival, but for a survival that matters, for knowledge that will guide our choices and actions, for selves that cohere and thrive, for lives of deep feeling and sensitivity, and for a realistic sense of expectation and hope. And for a natural life that doesn’t seem like a complete waste of time when it unceremoniously ends. The Deweyan account of human flourishing gives us something like this, but it also teeters on the brink of nihilism (which is why the two brave authors gird us against it)—a philosophy that threatens our sense of meaning by insisting that any existential significance is of our own all-too-human making.

If this strikes you as dismal or uninspiring—it shouldn’t. What exactly do you think you are entitled to in this life? At least Dewey’s pragmatism, offers a sense that things matter because we have a hand in our destiny, that our will and receptive capacities matter more—rather than less—precisely because there is no Divine Overseer making sure that we pay our dues and fulfill our callings. We are not in charge of the universe, or our world, or even our meagerly small communities, but we are still charged with measuring things out, both morally and empirically as best we can, day after day. This doesn’t seem fair, or particularly gentle, but it is undoubtedly true.

Much of Dewey’s pragmatic philosophy, developed in the first half of the 20th century, is descriptive—meaning that it tries to give an account of what human nature is like, where meaning comes from, how we grow and adapt in our natural settings. It dispels all the standard-yet-misguided ideas about what is most important about being human—our detached cognitive capacities, our mysterious sense of ourselves, our desire for the transcendent. Dewey explained how all of these seemingly special aspects of being human arose naturally from our evolutionary history, from our unique embodiment, from our environmental context. Much of the Mind in Nature extends and bolsters this description by incorporating cognitive neuroscience. The authors convincingly argue that the biological processes of homeostasis and allostasis (an organism’s ability to respond to stressors in order to return to homeostasis) form the basis of higher forms of human cognition, and they do a nice job of explaining the neural basis of core consciousness and pervasive unifying qualities. Simply put, over the course of human evolution, creatures like us have developed powers of abstract conceptualization, but these powers have emerged from, and are supported by, basic modes of survival and adaptation.  Our minds are embodied all the way down.

Yet there is a problem with Dewey. One can accept his naturalistic description of the human organism, accept the evidence that human experience and the natural world come hand in hand, accept that Experience and Nature cannot be torn asunder—and still be left with a sense that Dewey’s philosophy is unsatisfying. It might have to do with the lingering confusion about what to do, or how to actually live. It is as if Dewey bears witness to the death of God, the brushing away of all the divine pixy dust of being human, and then refuses to give guidance about what to do next. Of course, Dewey’s social and political philosophy as well as his extensive writings on education and democracy attempt to provide this guidance and have shaped the way that (some) educators and (a few) politicians approach things. But Dewey failed to give us something that, nearly a century later, Johnson and Schulkin finally offer at the end of Mind in Nature—namely a succinct account of how to live with a naturalized philosophy, in bite-sized sections titled “What Can I Know?”; “What Ought I To Do?”; and “What May I Hope?”

What can I know? In the words of Johnson and Schulkin:

Because all of our methods of inquiry and our conceptual systems are based on criticizable values, we have to give up any notion of absolute knowledge. Despite our pretensions to ultimate truths, we cannot be know-it-alls, but we can have confidence in the possibility of knowledge adequate to our current situation. … The replacement for allegedly fixed and completed knowledge must be constant vigilance; that is, continued criticism of our systems of valuation (including belief values), with openness to both supportive and falsifying evidence.

This requires a lot of work. A naturalistic philosophy entails a commitment to the scientific method, a process of inquiry that is ongoing and arduous, open to tentative success and inevitable error, the findings of which are practical yet provisional.

And what ought I to do? Johnson and Schulkin’s answer is closely related to Dewey’s method of inquiry:

Ethics naturalized is a “morality for humans.” It disabuses us of any pretention to ultimates or absolutes. It humbles us, but at the same time gives us a realistic means of moral problem solving. The results of such a process will never be final, though they may be the best we have for the moment. Present good is not the final endpoint of our reflections, but rather a temporary resting place from which to take on new challenges, in pursuit of what is better. That search for the better is a never-ending strenuous journey. It is hard to uncover and examine our deepest prejudices. It is hard to consider the experiences of all of those whose well-being is affected by your decisions and actions. It is hard to imagine creative and lasting resolutions of conflict. The conscientious inquirer will be prepared to reconsider prior deliberations in the face of new circumstances, which is one important indicator of moral growth.

Again, this is not easy. But our expectation that a moral life should be, is misplaced. We should remember that many of the most meaningful moments of life are, or can be, difficult, that persisting through difficulty is one of those truly special characteristics of being human that we maintain even and especially in our darkest hours.

And what may I hope for? This is different than what can I hope for. I can hope for any number of things. I can hope that a friendly blue woolly mammoth will save me from by problems, that I will be delivered to a perfect Dairy Queen after my death, that the world will work itself out without my effort or intervention. I can also be a very disappointed idiot. What may I hope for, according to a naturalized philosopher? To be modest, realistic, and existentially honest. I may hope that I am strong enough to face life as it actually is and not how I would imagine it to be. I may hope for the insight and sensitivity to face hardship with something like grace. And I may hope that the world is made just a little bit better by my life and efforts. And I may hope that this is enough.

The post Our Pragmatic Present appeared first on The American Scholar.

Москва

Маркелов: долг каждого из нас — отдать дань благодарности всем, кто кует обеду над вселенским злом

I was diagnosed with cancer aged 39… you are never too rich, too famous or too young, says Dr Philippa Kaye

The 10 Intense New Action Movies on Netflix That Left Me on the Edge of My Seat!

Top 10 Love Affair Movies of the 2000s and 2010s

Top 10 Emmanuelle Seigner Movies

Ria.city






Read also

Donald Trump calls for ‘law and order’ after attending slain cop’s wake

Orioles’ Corbin Burnes on opening day win | VIDEO

MSNBC legal expert clashes with 'whack-job' Trump ally on hush money judge accusations

News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on Today24.pro

News Every Day

Top 10 Love Affair Movies of the 2000s and 2010s

Today24.pro — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here


News Every Day

Top 10 Love Affair Movies of the 2000s and 2010s



Sports today


Новости тенниса
Елена Рыбакина

Рыбакина о том, что не играла в Индиан-Уэллс из-за болезни: «К сожалению, восстановление заняло много времени»



Спорт в России и мире
Москва

Победителями Всероссийской олимпиады по физике стали школьники Московского региона



All sports news today





Sports in Russia today

Москва

«Радио Зенит» – информационный партнер форума «Мы вместе. Спорт»


Новости России

Game News

Пробный запуск вампирского градостроя Vampire Legacy: City Builder


Russian.city


News Every Day

Top 10 Love Affair Movies of the 2000s and 2010s


Губернаторы России
Петербург

Путин отчитал Беглова за место Петербурга в туристическом рейтинге


Начало апреля в Татарстане будет теплым

Metaratings: "Спартак" может уволить Абаскаля по ходу сезона, клуб ищет тренера

Собянин: В Москве выберут лучший реализованный проект в области строительства

Заказать недорогой ремонт шкафов купе в Москве и Московской области


Певица Диана Арбенина объяснила, почему уехала из России

Концерт благотворительного фонда Владимира Спивакова прошел в Солнечногорске

Музыкант Устьянцев: Сергей Шнуров — профессионал, а Жуков — «балалаечка»

Кто из российских звезд перевел миллионы рублей жертвам «Крокуса»: сколько пожертвовали SHAMAN, Моргенштерн*, Бузова, Крид, INSTASAMKA, «Пикник» и другие


Теннисистка Касаткина отреагировала на высказывания Винер о россиянах

Теннисистка Александрова оказалась сильнее полячки Швентек на турнире WTA в США

Теннисист Медведев вышел в полуфинал турнира в Майами, обыграв Харри

Хачанов победил Черундоло и пробился в 1/8 финала турнира ATP в Майами



Перенос дат II этапа культурного проекта «Классика: история и современность» в Дмитрове

Пассажир рейса Москва — Пермь попал в реанимацию

Шапки женские вязаные на Wildberries, 2024 — новый цвет от 392 руб. (модель 466)

«Радио Зенит» – информационный партнер форума «Мы вместе. Спорт»


Финал всероссийского студенческого трека Олимпиады Кружкового движения НТО «Летающая робототехника» 2024

Продвижение Песен и Музыки в Плей-листах Яндекс.Музыка.

Самые популярные туристические маршруты России: на автомобиле

В России назвали топ самых благополучных регионов по итогам 2023 года


Депутат Госдумы напомнил о штрафе за сжигание мусора на даче

СКР: пассажир рейса Бангкок — Красноярск впал в кому, началось расследование

Концерт Стаса Пьехи или кавер-шоу: как провести выходные в Ульяновске

Сергей Собянин: Новый путепровод улучшит пропускную способность других трасс



Путин в России и мире






Персональные новости Russian.city
Борис

Ритуальный агент Борис Свистунов: комплексная поддержка в организации похоронных услуг в Санкт-Петербурге и Ленинградской области



News Every Day

Top 10 Love Affair Movies of the 2000s and 2010s




Friends of Today24

Музыкальные новости

Персональные новости