信任迁移:合理信任与认知越界。

IF 0.8 2区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Human Studies Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1007/s10746-022-09651-5
Duška Franeta
{"title":"信任迁移:合理信任与认知越界。","authors":"Duška Franeta","doi":"10.1007/s10746-022-09651-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Despite an immense amount of literature on the topic of trust, there is still no account that offers a plausible epistemological framework for the phenomenon of reasonable trust. The main claim of this article is that reasonable trust and distrust are phenomena based upon practical knowledge, while non-reasonable trust and distrust result from dislocation of trust into different epistemic regimes. This dislocation can be observed in some of the influential theories such as cognitive and emotional accounts of trust and in the accounts understanding trust as a form of faith. Added to that, theoretical approaches introducing a strong idea of basic trust preclude observing the difference between reasonable and non-reasonable trust. In this article, I argue that reasonable trust is founded upon practical knowledge which includes knowledge of integrity of the trusted person and knowledge about a similarity of worldviews of the trust giver and the trust receiver. Furthermore, I elaborate on the ways reasonable trust and distrust are being transformed and disfigured in other epistemic regimes. Drawing mainly upon Aristotelian understanding of practical knowledge, I want to show how non-reasonable trust and distrust are manifested in the phenomena of blind trust, unconditional trust and absolute doubt and explain why non-reasonable trust and distrust can hardly be distinguished from loyalty, subordination, infatuation or calculation.</p>","PeriodicalId":13027,"journal":{"name":"Human Studies","volume":"45 4","pages":"719-738"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9676884/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Migrations of Trust: Reasonable Trust and Epistemic Transgressions.\",\"authors\":\"Duška Franeta\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10746-022-09651-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Despite an immense amount of literature on the topic of trust, there is still no account that offers a plausible epistemological framework for the phenomenon of reasonable trust. The main claim of this article is that reasonable trust and distrust are phenomena based upon practical knowledge, while non-reasonable trust and distrust result from dislocation of trust into different epistemic regimes. This dislocation can be observed in some of the influential theories such as cognitive and emotional accounts of trust and in the accounts understanding trust as a form of faith. Added to that, theoretical approaches introducing a strong idea of basic trust preclude observing the difference between reasonable and non-reasonable trust. In this article, I argue that reasonable trust is founded upon practical knowledge which includes knowledge of integrity of the trusted person and knowledge about a similarity of worldviews of the trust giver and the trust receiver. Furthermore, I elaborate on the ways reasonable trust and distrust are being transformed and disfigured in other epistemic regimes. Drawing mainly upon Aristotelian understanding of practical knowledge, I want to show how non-reasonable trust and distrust are manifested in the phenomena of blind trust, unconditional trust and absolute doubt and explain why non-reasonable trust and distrust can hardly be distinguished from loyalty, subordination, infatuation or calculation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13027,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Human Studies\",\"volume\":\"45 4\",\"pages\":\"719-738\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9676884/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Human Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-022-09651-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Human Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10746-022-09651-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

尽管有大量关于信任的文献,但仍然没有一个账户为合理信任现象提供一个可信的认识论框架。本文的主要观点是,合理的信任和不信任是基于实践知识的现象,而非合理的信任和不信任是信任错位到不同的认识机制的结果。这种错位可以在一些有影响力的理论中观察到,例如对信任的认知和情感描述,以及将信任理解为一种信仰形式的描述。此外,理论方法引入了强烈的基本信任概念,排除了观察合理和非合理信任之间的区别。在这篇文章中,我认为合理的信任是建立在实践知识的基础上的,其中包括对被信任人的诚信的了解以及对信任给予者和信任接受者的相似世界观的了解。此外,我还详细阐述了合理的信任和不信任在其他认识体制中被转变和破坏的方式。我主要从亚里士多德对实践知识的理解出发,说明不合理的信任和不信任是如何表现在盲目信任、无条件信任和绝对怀疑的现象中,并解释为什么不合理的信任和不信任很难与忠诚、从属、迷恋或算计区分开来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Migrations of Trust: Reasonable Trust and Epistemic Transgressions.

Despite an immense amount of literature on the topic of trust, there is still no account that offers a plausible epistemological framework for the phenomenon of reasonable trust. The main claim of this article is that reasonable trust and distrust are phenomena based upon practical knowledge, while non-reasonable trust and distrust result from dislocation of trust into different epistemic regimes. This dislocation can be observed in some of the influential theories such as cognitive and emotional accounts of trust and in the accounts understanding trust as a form of faith. Added to that, theoretical approaches introducing a strong idea of basic trust preclude observing the difference between reasonable and non-reasonable trust. In this article, I argue that reasonable trust is founded upon practical knowledge which includes knowledge of integrity of the trusted person and knowledge about a similarity of worldviews of the trust giver and the trust receiver. Furthermore, I elaborate on the ways reasonable trust and distrust are being transformed and disfigured in other epistemic regimes. Drawing mainly upon Aristotelian understanding of practical knowledge, I want to show how non-reasonable trust and distrust are manifested in the phenomena of blind trust, unconditional trust and absolute doubt and explain why non-reasonable trust and distrust can hardly be distinguished from loyalty, subordination, infatuation or calculation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Human Studies
Human Studies Multiple-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
10.00%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: Human Studies is an international quarterly journal dedicated primarily to take forward and enlarge the dialogue between philosophy and the human sciences. Therefore the journal addresses theoretical and empirical topics as well as philosophical investigations in different areas of the human sciences. Phenomenological perspectives and hermeneutical orientations, broadly defined, are the primary focus and frame for published papers. The journal benefits from scholars working in a variety of fields and who seek a forum to address these issues, in order to bridge the gap between philosophical and other modes of inquiry in the human sciences.    Considering this as the main conceptual aim of Human Studies its wide-ranging interdisciplinary coverage includes contributions from sociology, philosophy, psychology, political science, communication studies, social geography, anthropology, history, and qualitative social research (especially ethnomethodology). A particular accent is set upon communication possibilities between these different perspectives. Thus, interdisciplinary approaches using phenomenology as starting point and reference in trying to analyze and explain the social reality are encouraged and welcome. Both established lines of interpretation and contemporary questions can be used either as basis or subject-matter.  Human Studies is the official journal of the Society for Phenomenology and the Human Sciences (SPHS).
期刊最新文献
Wire Osteosynthesis in the Treatment of Mandible Fractures in Low Resource Settings: A Force Study. Touch and Closeness in Naturally Organized Activities Thrown into the World, Attached to Love: On the Forms of World-Sharing and Mourning in Heidegger Consciousness of Emotion and Emotive Consciousness in Geiger and Husserl Intentionality as Tendency and Intentionality as Consciousness-of
×
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