This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Do either Johnson or Lakoff want to tie politics to ecoregions?
I suspect this is just a pet idea of 24,
not one of Johnson or Lakoff. References, please.
It is unclear what "it" is and what "schools" we are talking about.
What is an example of a political scientist who searches for an "embodied political economy"?
AxelBoldt, Saturday, April 13, 2002
Removed passages copied from other web pages.
I won't have much time this week to clean up the articles and deal with these concerns, but here's a suggestion. Before the end of April, I'll have short articles on the "body" theorists as individuals so that others can interpret their views as easily as I can, and I'll lay out their most popular views in their own terms, so that no one concludes I'm trying to get away with something here. In the meantime I would be pleased if someone would try to read the CIA and September 11th 2001 articles and try to think like some anti-US protester... those articles simply do not satisfy "writing for the enemy", and as they stand are omitting many important and documented facts. See the talk on those articles... really, if I was to apply the same degree of "neutral" scrutiny to many of those articles as is applied to mine, there would be very little left of them. I don't know about you, but I appreciate specific feedback, nasty or nice... and I continue to thank you for it. 24
I'd have to say this article does not seem to clearly indicate which philosophers and schools it is discussing. The article implies that Mark Johnson and George Lakoff define the field, but, as a summary of Lakoff and Johnson, the article seems to miss the mark, or at least discuss things unnecessarily abstractly; their claims about "embodiment" cognition basically boil down to the idea that how we think is largely determined by the bodies we have, and the mechanisms those bodies have for dealing with the world. Additionally, while Lakoff and friends may or may not desire, say, "a more localized political science", this is hardly at the core of their embodiment ideas.
Now, if the claim is that the "field" of embodied philosophy is actually much broader than just Lakoff and Johnson, then the article may be on firmer ground. In that case, however, I'd like to hear more about who the other thinkers are, who has claimed it is appropriate to lump them together with Lakoff and Johnson, and the motivations for doing so. In its current state, the article reads like a not entirely NPOV original synthesis by one particular individual. -- Ryguasu
Ok, I've totally started this article over. I think the term "embodied philosophy" is not used as it was described in the article - especially with the far-fetched connections to green economics - by anyone other than 24. I don't mean this as an attack on 24, but I'm generally suspicious of ideas held by one person and one person only, as Fred Bauder will probably attest to. Also, I'd love to be proven wrong, but I need to see some books, web sites, etc. that corroborate some of this page's original claims. -- Ryguasu 07:56 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
For what it's worth, an article by feminist Julie A. Nelson suggests that some feminists may use the term "embodied rationality" to mean a certain "feminine" kind of rationality. The term seems to have positive connotations. Unfortunately, I don't know what feminists use the term in this way. I have strong doubts that this has much overlap with Lakoff and friends' ideas, but this might be worth investigating. -- Ryguasu 22:19 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)
I am attempting to start a small discussion on distinguishing this page from Embodiment. Please have a look at Talk:Embodiment. Thanks! -- mporch 23:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
As I just commented in the Talk:Embodiment discusion, this page covers only philosophical and cognitive linguistic contributionst to embodied cognition. There are also substantial contributions to the field from cognitive psychology and neuropsychology. There is an excellent literature review on embodied cognition in: Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625-636. That would be a good starting point for a separate page on embodied cognition that does not redirect here. I also suggest that the cognitive linguistic material be moved to that page, so that this page only discusses philosophy, as its title suggests. Mark.Howison 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The grand sort-out
Not yet sorted (cut from the below list and paste into the above one):
to do with the mind
---
not to do with the mind
I think we need (where <x is a redirect):
---
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 07:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Updated: added robotics
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Updated: found another article
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Updated:
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 12:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Updated: found a few more articles to merge, came up with a title for AI article, linked to my draft.
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
--- paros ( talk) 06:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Hello again. Please read what I have posted here first. ECS=Embodied Cognitive Science. I'm not sure where to go with this. The discussion page on ECS has a splash template demanding the article be put into a WikiProject on Robotics. I know that this is going to make some people angry, but I agree with this decision. Lakoff, Johnson, and Turner, Andy Clark, etc etc all need placed in the Embodied psychology article. I'm totally convinced of this. The article on a research paradigm for AI and all those Nouvelle AI < situated < situated robotics all this stuff needs moved into the WikiProject on Robotics. Wikipedia is in dire need of a more realistic indexing of robotics topics. I am well aware that the phrase "Embodied Cognitive Science" is desirable because it has a ring to it. It is an unfortunate twist of history that robotics researchers have already seized the phrase!
Perhaps a temporary solution to this problem is simply a disambiguation page for ECS? ECS in robotics could link to my page. ECS in psychology could link into all the philosophy, psychology, linguistic guys like Lakoff and Andy Clark and Johnson. But this seems redundant since there is ALREADY an Embodied psychology article!
Okay so that's a really horrible solution. Having "Embodied Cognitive Science in psychology" link into Embodied psychology is needless semantic run-around. I hope you see this as clearly as I do. I'm going to go ahead and put my foot down now. ECS is now a robotics article. Anyone may submit their complaints here.
I've begun to execute the merge I outlined above. I've drawn together all the material from several articles that directly applies the embodied mind thesis. I've removed the article embodied psychology, taken a few things out of embodied cognitive science and I am in the process of changing embodiment into a disambiguation page. I removed this section, because it has no sources and I'm not sure who it is who talks about embodiment this way and whether they are really connected to the embodied mind thesis.
The goals of this school of philosophy include a more localized political science, perhaps one tied to ecoregions rather than to global ideology, and a non-dualistic account of the body to complement the more dualistic accounts of philosophy of law and philosophy of medicine, which literally dispose of the body and parts of the body. These all have deep roots in traditional anti-Cartesian approaches, such as Immanuel Kant's "skeptical view, arguing that we can have no positive knowledge about the nature of the mind and rejecting Cartesian claims that we have a privileged self-knowledge." Kant was likewise concerned with medicine and law, and had long sought to find general principles of personal conduct, most famously his categorical imperative, the basis of his ethics.
However, some assumptions regarding human cognitive bias and falsifiability of assertions regarding it seem to be shared by both schools. Likewise, some of embodied philosophy is clearly convergent with postmodernism, feminism, " queer" and other social construction paradigms that discuss socially-enforced metaphorical construction as a product not only of an "embodied" cognitive bias or an "isomorphic" notation bias but also of culture bias. In this broader sense, embodied philosophy has most of its influence on political science, on green economists and their search for an "embodied" or "body-respecting" political economy. It could also be said to be the main thrust of the anti-globalization movement, i.e. embodiment as localization, although that claim is disputed by those who view that movement as one narrowly opposing just capitalism.
The article still needs a lot of work to fill it out and make it totally accurate, but at least its all on a topic now. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 10:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I cut and pasted material from several articles into this one. I didn't rewrite the material. (So the whole article is choppy and still incomplete.) The only thing I deleted is the section above, and quite a bit of the old article embodiment. The only thing I wrote is the new introduction to this article, which I'm still not completely happy with. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 11:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The philosophies of Atticus clearly deny Embodied Cognition, seeing change in the mind as only being in the mind. This has led to many heated debates between followers of each. dubious citation needed
This list is ridiclously long, and clearly not being used to reference this very small article. Which if any are actually used, rather than being listed becasue they are on a somewhat similar topic? I left the references that corresponded to notes in the article.
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Do either Johnson or Lakoff want to tie politics to ecoregions?
I suspect this is just a pet idea of 24,
not one of Johnson or Lakoff. References, please.
It is unclear what "it" is and what "schools" we are talking about.
What is an example of a political scientist who searches for an "embodied political economy"?
AxelBoldt, Saturday, April 13, 2002
Removed passages copied from other web pages.
I won't have much time this week to clean up the articles and deal with these concerns, but here's a suggestion. Before the end of April, I'll have short articles on the "body" theorists as individuals so that others can interpret their views as easily as I can, and I'll lay out their most popular views in their own terms, so that no one concludes I'm trying to get away with something here. In the meantime I would be pleased if someone would try to read the CIA and September 11th 2001 articles and try to think like some anti-US protester... those articles simply do not satisfy "writing for the enemy", and as they stand are omitting many important and documented facts. See the talk on those articles... really, if I was to apply the same degree of "neutral" scrutiny to many of those articles as is applied to mine, there would be very little left of them. I don't know about you, but I appreciate specific feedback, nasty or nice... and I continue to thank you for it. 24
I'd have to say this article does not seem to clearly indicate which philosophers and schools it is discussing. The article implies that Mark Johnson and George Lakoff define the field, but, as a summary of Lakoff and Johnson, the article seems to miss the mark, or at least discuss things unnecessarily abstractly; their claims about "embodiment" cognition basically boil down to the idea that how we think is largely determined by the bodies we have, and the mechanisms those bodies have for dealing with the world. Additionally, while Lakoff and friends may or may not desire, say, "a more localized political science", this is hardly at the core of their embodiment ideas.
Now, if the claim is that the "field" of embodied philosophy is actually much broader than just Lakoff and Johnson, then the article may be on firmer ground. In that case, however, I'd like to hear more about who the other thinkers are, who has claimed it is appropriate to lump them together with Lakoff and Johnson, and the motivations for doing so. In its current state, the article reads like a not entirely NPOV original synthesis by one particular individual. -- Ryguasu
Ok, I've totally started this article over. I think the term "embodied philosophy" is not used as it was described in the article - especially with the far-fetched connections to green economics - by anyone other than 24. I don't mean this as an attack on 24, but I'm generally suspicious of ideas held by one person and one person only, as Fred Bauder will probably attest to. Also, I'd love to be proven wrong, but I need to see some books, web sites, etc. that corroborate some of this page's original claims. -- Ryguasu 07:56 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)
For what it's worth, an article by feminist Julie A. Nelson suggests that some feminists may use the term "embodied rationality" to mean a certain "feminine" kind of rationality. The term seems to have positive connotations. Unfortunately, I don't know what feminists use the term in this way. I have strong doubts that this has much overlap with Lakoff and friends' ideas, but this might be worth investigating. -- Ryguasu 22:19 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)
I am attempting to start a small discussion on distinguishing this page from Embodiment. Please have a look at Talk:Embodiment. Thanks! -- mporch 23:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)
As I just commented in the Talk:Embodiment discusion, this page covers only philosophical and cognitive linguistic contributionst to embodied cognition. There are also substantial contributions to the field from cognitive psychology and neuropsychology. There is an excellent literature review on embodied cognition in: Wilson, M. (2002). Six views of embodied cognition. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9(4), 625-636. That would be a good starting point for a separate page on embodied cognition that does not redirect here. I also suggest that the cognitive linguistic material be moved to that page, so that this page only discusses philosophy, as its title suggests. Mark.Howison 07:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
The grand sort-out
Not yet sorted (cut from the below list and paste into the above one):
to do with the mind
---
not to do with the mind
I think we need (where <x is a redirect):
---
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 07:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Updated: added robotics
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 23:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Updated: found another article
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 03:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Updated:
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 12:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Updated: found a few more articles to merge, came up with a title for AI article, linked to my draft.
CharlesGillingham (
talk) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
--- paros ( talk) 06:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Hello again. Please read what I have posted here first. ECS=Embodied Cognitive Science. I'm not sure where to go with this. The discussion page on ECS has a splash template demanding the article be put into a WikiProject on Robotics. I know that this is going to make some people angry, but I agree with this decision. Lakoff, Johnson, and Turner, Andy Clark, etc etc all need placed in the Embodied psychology article. I'm totally convinced of this. The article on a research paradigm for AI and all those Nouvelle AI < situated < situated robotics all this stuff needs moved into the WikiProject on Robotics. Wikipedia is in dire need of a more realistic indexing of robotics topics. I am well aware that the phrase "Embodied Cognitive Science" is desirable because it has a ring to it. It is an unfortunate twist of history that robotics researchers have already seized the phrase!
Perhaps a temporary solution to this problem is simply a disambiguation page for ECS? ECS in robotics could link to my page. ECS in psychology could link into all the philosophy, psychology, linguistic guys like Lakoff and Andy Clark and Johnson. But this seems redundant since there is ALREADY an Embodied psychology article!
Okay so that's a really horrible solution. Having "Embodied Cognitive Science in psychology" link into Embodied psychology is needless semantic run-around. I hope you see this as clearly as I do. I'm going to go ahead and put my foot down now. ECS is now a robotics article. Anyone may submit their complaints here.
I've begun to execute the merge I outlined above. I've drawn together all the material from several articles that directly applies the embodied mind thesis. I've removed the article embodied psychology, taken a few things out of embodied cognitive science and I am in the process of changing embodiment into a disambiguation page. I removed this section, because it has no sources and I'm not sure who it is who talks about embodiment this way and whether they are really connected to the embodied mind thesis.
The goals of this school of philosophy include a more localized political science, perhaps one tied to ecoregions rather than to global ideology, and a non-dualistic account of the body to complement the more dualistic accounts of philosophy of law and philosophy of medicine, which literally dispose of the body and parts of the body. These all have deep roots in traditional anti-Cartesian approaches, such as Immanuel Kant's "skeptical view, arguing that we can have no positive knowledge about the nature of the mind and rejecting Cartesian claims that we have a privileged self-knowledge." Kant was likewise concerned with medicine and law, and had long sought to find general principles of personal conduct, most famously his categorical imperative, the basis of his ethics.
However, some assumptions regarding human cognitive bias and falsifiability of assertions regarding it seem to be shared by both schools. Likewise, some of embodied philosophy is clearly convergent with postmodernism, feminism, " queer" and other social construction paradigms that discuss socially-enforced metaphorical construction as a product not only of an "embodied" cognitive bias or an "isomorphic" notation bias but also of culture bias. In this broader sense, embodied philosophy has most of its influence on political science, on green economists and their search for an "embodied" or "body-respecting" political economy. It could also be said to be the main thrust of the anti-globalization movement, i.e. embodiment as localization, although that claim is disputed by those who view that movement as one narrowly opposing just capitalism.
The article still needs a lot of work to fill it out and make it totally accurate, but at least its all on a topic now. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 10:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I cut and pasted material from several articles into this one. I didn't rewrite the material. (So the whole article is choppy and still incomplete.) The only thing I deleted is the section above, and quite a bit of the old article embodiment. The only thing I wrote is the new introduction to this article, which I'm still not completely happy with. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 11:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
The philosophies of Atticus clearly deny Embodied Cognition, seeing change in the mind as only being in the mind. This has led to many heated debates between followers of each. dubious citation needed
This list is ridiclously long, and clearly not being used to reference this very small article. Which if any are actually used, rather than being listed becasue they are on a somewhat similar topic? I left the references that corresponded to notes in the article.