On Gregariousness

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-09-20 DOI:10.1017/S0031819122000316
Jonas Faria Costa
{"title":"On Gregariousness","authors":"Jonas Faria Costa","doi":"10.1017/S0031819122000316","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract There seems to be a difference between drinking coffee alone at home and drinking coffee in a café. Yet, drinking coffee in a café is not a joint action. It is an individual action done in a social environment. The café, with each person minding their own business next to others, is what I call a gregarious state of affairs. Gregariousness refers to the warmth of the social world. It is the difference between studying alone at home and studying in the library. This light form of sociality is precisely what we were deprived of during the coronavirus lockdowns. Gregariousness cannot be explained as interaction or coordination, and neither can it be grasped solely as a normative aspect of the environment. This is why gregariousness cannot be explained using the concepts of strategic equilibrium, shared planning agency, joint commitment, we-intention, or second-person standpoint. In this paper, I will also provide a prospective theory of gregariousness. The aim of this paper is not to provide a definitive theory of gregariousness, nor to demonstrate that other theories of joint action are incorrect, but rather to draw attention to this aspect of the social world that has been largely neglected.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"97 1","pages":"435 - 460"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819122000316","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract There seems to be a difference between drinking coffee alone at home and drinking coffee in a café. Yet, drinking coffee in a café is not a joint action. It is an individual action done in a social environment. The café, with each person minding their own business next to others, is what I call a gregarious state of affairs. Gregariousness refers to the warmth of the social world. It is the difference between studying alone at home and studying in the library. This light form of sociality is precisely what we were deprived of during the coronavirus lockdowns. Gregariousness cannot be explained as interaction or coordination, and neither can it be grasped solely as a normative aspect of the environment. This is why gregariousness cannot be explained using the concepts of strategic equilibrium, shared planning agency, joint commitment, we-intention, or second-person standpoint. In this paper, I will also provide a prospective theory of gregariousness. The aim of this paper is not to provide a definitive theory of gregariousness, nor to demonstrate that other theories of joint action are incorrect, but rather to draw attention to this aspect of the social world that has been largely neglected.
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
论格雷戈里
在家里单独喝咖啡和在咖啡馆喝咖啡似乎是有区别的。然而,在咖啡馆喝咖啡并不是一种共同的行为。它是在社会环境中进行的个人行为。在咖啡馆里,每个人都在别人旁边做自己的事,这就是我所说的群居状态。合群指的是社交圈的温暖。这就是独自在家学习和在图书馆学习的区别。这种轻松的社交形式正是我们在冠状病毒封锁期间被剥夺的。群居性不能被解释为互动或协调,也不能仅仅被理解为环境的一个规范方面。这就是为什么合群性不能用战略均衡、共同规划机构、共同承诺、我们意图或第二人称立场等概念来解释。在本文中,我还将提供一个前瞻性的群居性理论。本文的目的不是要提供一个关于群居性的权威理论,也不是要证明其他关于共同行动的理论是不正确的,而是要引起人们对社会世界中这个在很大程度上被忽视的方面的关注。
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
PHILOSOPHY
PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Philosophy is the journal of the Royal Institute of Philosophy, which was founded in 1925 to build bridges between specialist philosophers and a wider educated public. The journal continues to fulfil a dual role: it is one of the leading academic journals of philosophy, but it also serves the philosophical interests of specialists in other fields (law, language, literature and the arts, medicine, politics, religion, science, education, psychology, history) and those of the informed general reader. Contributors are required to avoid needless technicality of language and presentation. The institutional subscription includes two supplements.
期刊最新文献
Dark Futures: Toward a Philosophical Archaeology of Hope Mobility, Migration, and Mobile Migration Feeling Responsible: On Regret for Others’ Harms Being Open-Minded about Open-Mindedness P.F. Strawson on Punishment and the Hypothesis of Symbolic Retribution
×
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