同理心。E. Stein和R. inggarden与认知心理学

Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica Pub Date : 2019-05-25 DOI:10.26881/maes.2019.1.02

T. Kakol

{"title":"同理心。E. Stein和R. inggarden与认知心理学","authors":"T. Kakol","doi":"10.26881/maes.2019.1.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I compare (using as paradigmatic examples E. Stein and R. Ingarden) phenomenological theories of empathy (understood as “mind-reading”) with contemporary cognitivists’ approach to this issue, arguing that although they are prima facie incompatible, in fact they can be seen as complementary. Since empathy is indispensable in practice, a correct conceptualization of this topic is desirable.","PeriodicalId":230730,"journal":{"name":"Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Empathy. E. Stein and R. Ingarden vs. Cognitive Psychology\",\"authors\":\"T. Kakol\",\"doi\":\"10.26881/maes.2019.1.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper I compare (using as paradigmatic examples E. Stein and R. Ingarden) phenomenological theories of empathy (understood as “mind-reading”) with contemporary cognitivists’ approach to this issue, arguing that although they are prima facie incompatible, in fact they can be seen as complementary. Since empathy is indispensable in practice, a correct conceptualization of this topic is desirable.\",\"PeriodicalId\":230730,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26881/maes.2019.1.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26881/maes.2019.1.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

在本文中，我将同理心的现象学理论(被理解为“读心术”)与当代认知主义者对这一问题的研究方法进行了比较(以E. Stein和R. Ingarden为范例)，认为尽管它们表面上是不相容的，但实际上它们可以被视为互补的。由于移情在实践中是不可或缺的，因此对这一主题的正确概念化是可取的。

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

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

On Empathy. E. Stein and R. Ingarden vs. Cognitive Psychology

In this paper I compare (using as paradigmatic examples E. Stein and R. Ingarden) phenomenological theories of empathy (understood as “mind-reading”) with contemporary cognitivists’ approach to this issue, arguing that although they are prima facie incompatible, in fact they can be seen as complementary. Since empathy is indispensable in practice, a correct conceptualization of this topic is desirable.

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

Miscellanea Anthropologica et Sociologica

自引率

0.00%

发文量