Thought Experiments as Social Practice and the Clash of Imaginers

IF 0.2 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Croatian Journal of Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-09-15 DOI:10.52685/cjp.22.65.6
D. Molinari
{"title":"Thought Experiments as Social Practice and the Clash of Imaginers","authors":"D. Molinari","doi":"10.52685/cjp.22.65.6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the last few years, several philosophers have highlighted the social dimension of imagination. In this paper I argue that thought experiments prompt social uses of imaginings if we understand them as props in games of make-believe. In prescribing to imagine stories that develop through fictional narratives, authors of thought experiments prompt their readers to engage in the same imaginative project—at least in its salient aspects—and to endorse their conclusions. Contributions on this topic focus on cases where coordination across imaginers is immediately successful. However, this is not the end of the story. I draw attention to situations where this is not the case, as the practice of thought experimentation often proceeds through criticism, rejections, and amendments. I focus on cases where imaginers do not endorse the conclusion proposed by the author of a thought experiment and either (i) fully reject the principles of generation, (ii) draw different fictional truths from the same principles, or (iii) amend the principles. Although cases of imaginative disharmony are usually dismissed as failures, I acknowledge them as fruitful steps in the cognitive advancement achievable by thought experiments. Cooperative imaginers challenge the rules of the game in meaningful ways, which leads to enhancing fictional scenarios and framing them through different perspectives.","PeriodicalId":43218,"journal":{"name":"Croatian Journal of Philosophy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Croatian Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52685/cjp.22.65.6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

In the last few years, several philosophers have highlighted the social dimension of imagination. In this paper I argue that thought experiments prompt social uses of imaginings if we understand them as props in games of make-believe. In prescribing to imagine stories that develop through fictional narratives, authors of thought experiments prompt their readers to engage in the same imaginative project—at least in its salient aspects—and to endorse their conclusions. Contributions on this topic focus on cases where coordination across imaginers is immediately successful. However, this is not the end of the story. I draw attention to situations where this is not the case, as the practice of thought experimentation often proceeds through criticism, rejections, and amendments. I focus on cases where imaginers do not endorse the conclusion proposed by the author of a thought experiment and either (i) fully reject the principles of generation, (ii) draw different fictional truths from the same principles, or (iii) amend the principles. Although cases of imaginative disharmony are usually dismissed as failures, I acknowledge them as fruitful steps in the cognitive advancement achievable by thought experiments. Cooperative imaginers challenge the rules of the game in meaningful ways, which leads to enhancing fictional scenarios and framing them through different perspectives.
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
作为社会实践的思想实验与想象工程师的冲突
在过去的几年里,一些哲学家强调了想象力的社会维度。在本文中,我认为,如果我们将思维实验理解为虚构游戏中的道具,那么思维实验将促进想象力的社会应用。思维实验的作者让读者想象通过虚构叙事发展起来的故事,从而促使读者参与到同样的想象项目中——至少在其显著方面——并认可他们的结论。关于这个主题的贡献集中在跨想象者的协调立即成功的情况下。然而,这并不是故事的结尾。我提请注意的情况并非如此,因为思想实验的实践通常是通过批评、拒绝和修正来进行的。我关注的案例是,想象者不赞同思想实验作者提出的结论,或者(I)完全拒绝生成原则,(ii)从相同的原则中得出不同的虚构真理,或者(iii)修改原则。尽管想象力不和谐的案例通常被认为是失败的,但我承认它们是通过思维实验实现认知进步的富有成效的步骤。合作想象者以有意义的方式挑战游戏规则,从而增强虚构的场景,并从不同的角度构建它们。
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Beyond Reading The Dark Side of Cultural Sensitivity Drawing Reflections Literary Interpretation is Not Just About Meaning Intimations of a Lyricism sans Subject
×
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