The ‘Prejudice in favour of Psyghophysical Parallelism’

L. Holborow
{"title":"The ‘Prejudice in favour of Psyghophysical Parallelism’","authors":"L. Holborow","doi":"10.1017/S0080443600000340","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Wittgenstein refers to psychophysical parallelism in this apparently prejudiced way in paragraph 611 of Zettel, in the course of a rather remarkable passage. It begins at 605 with the claim that ‘One of the most dangerous ideas for a philosopher is, oddly enough, that we think with our heads or in our heads’. Subsequent sections develop this remark in a way that demonstrates Wittgenstein's rejection of the view that thinking is any sort of process in the head, whether a physiological process or a matter of the operations of ‘a nebulous mental entity’. Indeed he appears to consider that these ontologically opposed alternatives have a common source, in that they both derive from the mistaken view that there must be a mediating process between psychological phenomena such as my present remembering and my experience of the remembered event (cf. Z, 610). If we find no suitable mediating physiological process, we are easily led to assume that there must be a process of a rather different sort, and hence we are led to believe in a ‘nebulous mental entity’. But this whole line of thought in fact depends on a ‘primitive interpretation of our concepts’, an interpretation which we uncritically made at the stage at which we assumed that there must be a process of some sort mediating between the phenomena. We are reminded of Wittgenstein's earlier remarks in Philosophical Investigations, I, 308:","PeriodicalId":322312,"journal":{"name":"Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures","volume":"98 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1973-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Institute of Philosophy Lectures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0080443600000340","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Wittgenstein refers to psychophysical parallelism in this apparently prejudiced way in paragraph 611 of Zettel, in the course of a rather remarkable passage. It begins at 605 with the claim that ‘One of the most dangerous ideas for a philosopher is, oddly enough, that we think with our heads or in our heads’. Subsequent sections develop this remark in a way that demonstrates Wittgenstein's rejection of the view that thinking is any sort of process in the head, whether a physiological process or a matter of the operations of ‘a nebulous mental entity’. Indeed he appears to consider that these ontologically opposed alternatives have a common source, in that they both derive from the mistaken view that there must be a mediating process between psychological phenomena such as my present remembering and my experience of the remembered event (cf. Z, 610). If we find no suitable mediating physiological process, we are easily led to assume that there must be a process of a rather different sort, and hence we are led to believe in a ‘nebulous mental entity’. But this whole line of thought in fact depends on a ‘primitive interpretation of our concepts’, an interpretation which we uncritically made at the stage at which we assumed that there must be a process of some sort mediating between the phenomena. We are reminded of Wittgenstein's earlier remarks in Philosophical Investigations, I, 308:
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
“支持心理物理平行的偏见”
维特根斯坦在Zettel的第611段中,以这种明显带有偏见的方式提到了心理物理的平行性,这是一段相当引人注目的段落。它从605页开始,声称“对哲学家来说,最危险的想法之一是,奇怪的是,我们用我们的头脑思考或在我们的头脑中思考”。接下来的章节以一种方式发展了这一评论,以证明维特根斯坦拒绝这种观点,即思考是大脑中的任何一种过程,无论是生理过程还是“一个模糊的精神实体”的操作问题。事实上,他似乎认为这些本体论上相反的选择有一个共同的来源,因为它们都源于一个错误的观点,即在心理现象(如我现在的记忆和我对被记忆事件的经验)之间必须有一个中介过程(参见Z, 610)。如果找不到合适的生理过程作为中介,我们就很容易假定一定存在着另一种完全不同的过程,从而使我们相信存在着一种"模糊的精神实体"。但是,这整个思路实际上是建立在"对概念的原始解释"的基础上的,这种解释是我们在假定现象之间一定存在着某种中介过程的时候,不加批判地作出的。我们想起了维特根斯坦在《哲学研究》第1卷308页的早期评论:
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
Hume, Newton and ‘the Hill called Difficulty’ Hume as Moralist: a Social Historian's Perspective Diderot: Man and Society Kant and the Sincere Fanatic The Empiricism of Locke and Newton
×
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