Classical philosophies on blindness and cross-modal transfer, 1688–2003

S. Hayhoe
{"title":"Classical philosophies on blindness and cross-modal transfer, 1688–2003","authors":"S. Hayhoe","doi":"10.4324/9781315111353-15","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter addresses the question: Has the methodology of cross-modal transfer affected our theory of cognition and blindness to the detriment of the majority of people with visual impairments? In order to address this question, philosophical and psychological literature in the date range 1688–2008 is surveyed, and methodologies are analysed using an epistemological model of blindness. It is concluded that methodologies used in the study of cross-modal transfer rarely developed a useful epistemology of blindness or promoted the social inclusion of people with visual impairments. Instead, studies often conflated moral philosophy, intellect and perception for political and religious motives. Two possible solutions to these problems are suggested: first, methodology in the study of philosophy and psychology needs to accommodate a spectrum of variables affecting visual impairment; second, philosophers and psychologists need to do more to promote the inclusion and understanding of blindness itself, rather than trying to make broad points about the mind and deficit.","PeriodicalId":112450,"journal":{"name":"The Routledge Handbook of Visual Impairment","volume":"25 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Routledge Handbook of Visual Impairment","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315111353-15","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This chapter addresses the question: Has the methodology of cross-modal transfer affected our theory of cognition and blindness to the detriment of the majority of people with visual impairments? In order to address this question, philosophical and psychological literature in the date range 1688–2008 is surveyed, and methodologies are analysed using an epistemological model of blindness. It is concluded that methodologies used in the study of cross-modal transfer rarely developed a useful epistemology of blindness or promoted the social inclusion of people with visual impairments. Instead, studies often conflated moral philosophy, intellect and perception for political and religious motives. Two possible solutions to these problems are suggested: first, methodology in the study of philosophy and psychology needs to accommodate a spectrum of variables affecting visual impairment; second, philosophers and psychologists need to do more to promote the inclusion and understanding of blindness itself, rather than trying to make broad points about the mind and deficit.
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
古典哲学的盲目性和跨模态转移,1688-2003
本章讨论的问题是:跨模态迁移的方法是否影响了我们的认知和失明理论,从而损害了大多数视觉障碍患者的利益?为了解决这个问题,我们调查了1688-2008年期间的哲学和心理学文献,并使用盲目性认识论模型分析了方法。研究结果表明,跨模态迁移研究中使用的方法很少能形成有用的盲目性认识论或促进视障人士的社会包容。相反,研究经常将道德哲学、智力和对政治和宗教动机的感知混为一谈。对这些问题提出了两种可能的解决方案:第一,哲学和心理学研究的方法需要适应影响视觉障碍的一系列变量;其次,哲学家和心理学家需要做更多的工作来促进对失明本身的包容和理解,而不是试图对心灵和缺陷提出宽泛的观点。
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
A personal perspective on CVI Formal and non-formal education for individuals with vision impairment or multiple disabilities and vision impairment Aging and combined vision and hearing loss Technologies for vision impairment Global data on vision loss
×
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