Cognitive Confinement, Embodied Sense-Making, and the (De)Colonization of Knowledge

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophical Papers Pub Date : 2020-05-03 DOI:10.1080/05568641.2020.1779603
K. Werner
{"title":"Cognitive Confinement, Embodied Sense-Making, and the (De)Colonization of Knowledge","authors":"K. Werner","doi":"10.1080/05568641.2020.1779603","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper posits the concept of cognitive confinement as a useful tool for understanding the idea of decolonization of knowledge and the opposite notion of epistemic colonization. For the sake of the mentioned goal, the paper places the discourse on epistemic (de)colonization within the context of a paradigm emerging in the cognitive sciences, referred to as embodied cognition. Cognitive confinement is understood here as a pathological situation in which the environment in which one’s epistemic pursuits are embedded gradually transforms in such a way as to impede these pursuits and downgrade one’s capacity to address real, especially local, problems. The paper also brings up a case study. Namely, it follows those thinkers, most famously Naomi Klein, who regard the ‘shock-therapeutic’ transition from Soviet-backed communism to free market capitalism undergone by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a new and peculiar wave of colonization. The paper briefly discusses the epistemic or cognitive, broadly construed, aspect of this process.","PeriodicalId":46780,"journal":{"name":"Philosophical Papers","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/05568641.2020.1779603","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophical Papers","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2020.1779603","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract This paper posits the concept of cognitive confinement as a useful tool for understanding the idea of decolonization of knowledge and the opposite notion of epistemic colonization. For the sake of the mentioned goal, the paper places the discourse on epistemic (de)colonization within the context of a paradigm emerging in the cognitive sciences, referred to as embodied cognition. Cognitive confinement is understood here as a pathological situation in which the environment in which one’s epistemic pursuits are embedded gradually transforms in such a way as to impede these pursuits and downgrade one’s capacity to address real, especially local, problems. The paper also brings up a case study. Namely, it follows those thinkers, most famously Naomi Klein, who regard the ‘shock-therapeutic’ transition from Soviet-backed communism to free market capitalism undergone by the countries of Central and Eastern Europe as a new and peculiar wave of colonization. The paper briefly discusses the epistemic or cognitive, broadly construed, aspect of this process.
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
认知的禁锢、具体意义的创造与知识的(去)殖民
摘要本文认为认知限制的概念是理解知识非殖民化思想和相反的认知殖民化概念的有用工具。为了实现上述目标,本文将关于认知(去)殖民化的论述置于认知科学中出现的一种范式的背景下,即具体认知。认知限制在这里被理解为一种病态的情况,在这种情况下,一个人的认知追求所处的环境逐渐发生变化,阻碍了这些追求,并降低了一个人解决真实问题,特别是局部问题的能力。本文还提出了一个案例研究。也就是说,它追随了那些思想家,最著名的是Naomi Klein,他们认为中欧和东欧国家从苏联支持的共产主义到自由市场资本主义的“休克疗法”转变是一种新的、独特的殖民化浪潮。本文简要讨论了这一过程的认识或认知方面。
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
Philosophical Papers
Philosophical Papers PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
期刊介绍: Philosophical Papers is an international, generalist journal of philosophy edited in South Africa Original Articles: Articles appearing in regular issues are original, high-quality, and stand-alone, and are written for the general professional philosopher. Submissions are welcome in any area of philosophy and undergo a process of peer review based on initial editor screening and refereeing by (usually) two referees. Special Issues: Topic-based special issues are comprised of both invited and submitted papers selected by guest editors. Recent special issues have included ''Philosophy''s Therapeutic Potential'' (2014, editor Dylan Futter); ''Aging and the Elderly'' (2012, editors Tom Martin and Samantha Vice); ''The Problem of the Criterion'' (2011, editor Mark Nelson); ''Retributive Emotions'' (2010, editor Lucy Allais); ‘Rape and its Meaning/s’ (2009, editor Louise du Toit). Calls for papers for upcoming special issues can be found here. Ideas for future special issues are welcome.
期刊最新文献
Wittgenstein’s Movements of Thought and the Socratic Tradition of Philosophy Sartrean Magic and the Impossibility of Death Decolonising Philosophy Hostile Scaffolding Development and Modernity in Africa: An Intercultural Philosophical Perspective
×
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