Philosophers’ Problems: Transaction in Philosophy and Life

F. Ryan
{"title":"Philosophers’ Problems: Transaction in Philosophy and Life","authors":"F. Ryan","doi":"10.5040/9781350233348.ch-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Transactional pragmatism supplants a containment paradigm dividing mind-dependence from mind-independence with an inferential alternative based upon the minding or managing of problems to solutions. Previously I’ve targeted defects in various forms of realism. Here I extend the critique to a broad range of interactional views, including some championed by pragmatists. A transactional phenomenology of “philosophers’ problems” is compatible with intuitions about objective reality in everyday life and scientific explanation, and helps us “see together” empirical connections otherwise regarded as disparate. Introduction. A few years back I differentiated “containment” from “inference” in defending a transactional interpretation of classical pragmatism. In separating minddependence from mind-independence, the containment paradigm is vulnerable to external world skepticism. The inference paradigm rejects mind-independence insofar as “mind” is regarded as the minding or managing of problems to objects/objectives showcased in John Dewey’s pattern of inquiry. Section 1 of this essay sketches skeptical challenges to containment, and the alternative posed by an inference paradigm. Section 2 supports this with a pragmatist phenomenology in service to a modest Deweyan “system.” Section 3 critiques interactional world views still widely embraced by pragmatists, and advances a transactional interpretation of disputed concepts such as experience and existence, signbehavior, and embodied consciousness. I ultimately hope to show that a transactional","PeriodicalId":367278,"journal":{"name":"Deweyan Transactionalism in Education","volume":"150 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Deweyan Transactionalism in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350233348.ch-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Transactional pragmatism supplants a containment paradigm dividing mind-dependence from mind-independence with an inferential alternative based upon the minding or managing of problems to solutions. Previously I’ve targeted defects in various forms of realism. Here I extend the critique to a broad range of interactional views, including some championed by pragmatists. A transactional phenomenology of “philosophers’ problems” is compatible with intuitions about objective reality in everyday life and scientific explanation, and helps us “see together” empirical connections otherwise regarded as disparate. Introduction. A few years back I differentiated “containment” from “inference” in defending a transactional interpretation of classical pragmatism. In separating minddependence from mind-independence, the containment paradigm is vulnerable to external world skepticism. The inference paradigm rejects mind-independence insofar as “mind” is regarded as the minding or managing of problems to objects/objectives showcased in John Dewey’s pattern of inquiry. Section 1 of this essay sketches skeptical challenges to containment, and the alternative posed by an inference paradigm. Section 2 supports this with a pragmatist phenomenology in service to a modest Deweyan “system.” Section 3 critiques interactional world views still widely embraced by pragmatists, and advances a transactional interpretation of disputed concepts such as experience and existence, signbehavior, and embodied consciousness. I ultimately hope to show that a transactional
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
哲学家的问题:哲学与生活的交易
交易实用主义取代了将思维依赖与思维独立分开的遏制范式,采用了基于思考或管理问题到解决方案的推理替代方案。之前我针对各种形式的现实主义的缺陷。在这里,我将批评扩展到更广泛的互动观点,包括一些实用主义者所支持的观点。“哲学家问题”的交易现象学与日常生活中的客观现实和科学解释的直觉是相容的,并帮助我们“一起看到”经验联系,否则被认为是不同的。介绍。几年前,我在为古典实用主义的交易解释辩护时,将“遏制”与“推理”区分开来。在将思维依赖与思维独立分离的过程中,遏制范式很容易受到外部世界怀疑的影响。推理范式拒绝心智独立,因为在约翰·杜威的探究模式中,“心智”被视为对对象/目标的问题的思维或管理。本文第1节概述了对遏制的怀疑挑战,以及由推理范式提出的替代方案。第2节用实用主义现象学来支持这一点,以服务于适度的杜威“系统”。第3节批评了仍然被实用主义者广泛接受的互动世界观,并对经验和存在、符号行为和具体化意识等有争议的概念提出了交易解释。我最终希望展示一个交易
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Philosophers’ Problems: Transaction in Philosophy and Life Transactional Systems of Exploration and Learning Transactional Analyses of the Entanglement of the Aesthetical, Moral and Political in Learning Processes Applications of Transactional Methodologies for Analysis of Teaching and Learning Processes A mTransactional Perspective on Ethics and Morals
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1