Abstract
Recent work in neurophilosophy has either made reference to the work of John Dewey or independently developed positions similar to it. I review these developments in order first to show that Dewey was indeed doing neurophilosophy well before the Churchlands and others, thereby preceding many other mid-twentieth century European philosophers’ views on cognition to whom many present day philosophers refer (e.g., Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty). I also show that Dewey’s work provides useful tools for evading or overcoming many issues in contemporary neurophilosophy and philosophy of mind. In this introductory review, I distinguish between three waves among neurophilosophers that revolve around the import of evolution and the degree of brain-centrism. Throughout, I emphasize and elaborate upon Dewey’s dynamic view of mind and consciousness. I conclude by introducing the consciousness-as-cooking metaphor as an alternative to both the consciousness-as-digestion and consciousness-as-dancing metaphors. Neurophilosophical pragmatism—or neuropragmatism—recognizes the import of evolutionary and cognitive neurobiology for developing a science of mind and consciousness. However, as the cooking metaphor illustrates, a science of mind and consciousness cannot rely on the brain alone—just as explaining cooking entails more than understanding the gut—and therefore must establish continuity with cultural activities and their respective fields of inquiry. Neuropragmatism advances a new and promising perspective on how to reconcile the scientific and manifest images of humanity as well as how to reconstruct the relationship between science and the humanities.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
See Dalton 2002 on Dewey’s interest in contemporary science and its influence on his philosophy.
Given the popularity of affixing the prefix neuro- to various fields and ideas, it comes as no surprise that something very close to neuropragmatism has already been coined. Coming predominantly out of cognitive linguistics is the emerging field of neuropragmatics. While pragmatics within linguistics is distinct from pragmatism, there are important affinities, especially in their shared origins (see Tschaepe 2009). Brigitte Stemmer and Paul Walter Schönle introduce neuropragmatics in a manner that has great affinity with neuropragmatism in the call for wide interdisciplinary work yet nevertheless succumb to a version of Cartesian materialism in which the mind/brain is the subject matter of inquiry (see Stemmer and Schönle 2000). Bruno G. Bara and Maurizio Tirassa are likewise very sympathetic with what I am calling neuropragmatism, not only in their call for interdisciplinary inquiry but also with the emphasis for “a more ecological framework.” Yet, they too come too close to Cartesian materialism in their endorsement of the mind/brain and the condonation of mind as the function of the brain, a relation analogously based on digestion and the gut (see Bara and Tirassa 2000). As I show, not only is this metaphor inadequate for understanding mentality, but also it is not taken as seriously by its proponents as it needs to be. Neuropragmatism differs from neuropragmatics in that the former is a general philosophical position taken with regard to inquiry into mentality and thereby seeks to evade problematic premises and implicit dichotomies found in the latter, a specific scientific subfield. Moreover, neuropragmatism is post-linguistic, whereas neuropragmatics is specifically focused on the linguistic—not a weakness, mind you, just a difference in emphasis and purpose. And let us not forget the “abductive” history of the early pragmatists and the name of their doctrine (see Peirce 1905, p. 335).
Or something special or uniquely intrinsic about the brain as opposed to other non-neural media.
The discussion of pragmatism or Dewey or the traits I attribute to the first-wave is so disparate among these first wavers that I find no easy way to discuss them individually or summarily. Here are some relevant citations on these details: Churchland 1989, 2002, 2007; Flanagan 1996, 1998, 2002, 2007; Dennett 1991, 1995, 2006.
Mark Johnson deserves recognition as seeing past many of the issues, though I limit myself from discussing his views here. See Johnson 1987, 1993, 2007, 2009, 2010. Where Johnson and I differ is in particular emphasis. Where I restrain myself to neurophilosophers, he looks at the history of cognitive science as in two generations, the early being Cartesian and the latter coming around to pragmatism. While he rightly notes that pragmatism was in most regards anathema to the first generation, it is worth considering that Jerry Fodor has recently recognized that the problem with the whole of mind science today is precisely because it is infected with pragmatism! (See Fodor 2008, pp. 8–15.)
Throughout this paper, I interchange interaction and transaction, perhaps to the chagrin of many. For details on the subtle differences between interaction, transaction, and enaction, see Johnson 2009, p. 372.
The use of processed foods and fast food may seem to be enough to falsify my claim here. I respond by returning to Dewey’s emphasis on the need for unifying such disparate fields of experience or inquiry like nutrition and economics. To say more on the plausible consequences of such, an integration would go well beyond the scope of this essay.
There are insects like bees that can be described as performing external digestion. My point here is more concerned with mammalian evolution and the development of human consciousness. While exceptions are bound to be found throughout nature, my proposed metaphor may be suitably modified, or, if necessary, rejected, in cases like external digestion.
My distinction between internal/external and organism/environment may seem to be a return to the dualism I am otherwise attacking. Make no mistake: despite the limits of ordinary language, my distinction is functional and emphasizes the transaction between organism and environment. While there may not be a clear boundary between the two there is nevertheless a difference that makes a difference in practice: viable organisms tend not to eat themselves.
To be clear, my use of “cooking” here is very broad. While fire-using is central to my imagery here, its use is not the only means humans have developed and utilized to prepare food. From yogurt to ceviche, there are clearly ways to prepare foodstuffs in ways that serve similar ends as cooking with heat. Regardless of the particular method, the emphasis here is on the transformation that occurs when digestion becomes intelligently extended beyond the gut.
This phrasing—experiences are had but not known—I had thought was Dewey’s very phrasing; it certainly sounds like something he would have said. Having searched through the electronic version of his Collected Works and a general web search, I have found nothing to suggest that it is not my own phrasing. Should I be shown that it is not my own creation, I would gladly give proper credit to the author of such pith.
Experiences are first had before they are known. They are not always known, however.
References
Bara, B. G., & Tirassa, M. (2000). Neuropragmatics: brain and communication. Brain and Language, 71, 10–14.
Bickle, J. (2009). Introduction. In J. Bickle (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience (pp. 3–10). New York: Oxford University Press.
Chemero, A. (2009). Radical embodied cognitive science. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Churchland, P. S. (1986). Neurophilosophy: Toward a unified science of the mind/brain. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Churchland, P. M. (1989). A neurocomputational perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Churchland, P. M. (1996). Flanagan on moral knowledge. In R. N. McCauley (Ed.), The Churchlands and their critics (pp. 302–310). Cambridge: Blackwell.
Churchland, P. S. (2002). Brain-wise: Studies in neurophilosophy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Churchland, P. M. (2007). Neurophilosophy at work. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Churchland, P. S. (2009). Inference to the best decision. In J. Bickle (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy and neuroscience (pp. 419–430). New York: Oxford University Press.
Clark, A. (1997). Being there: Putting brain, body, and world together again. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the mind: Embodiment, action, and cognitive extension. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, T. C. (2002). Becoming John Dewey: Dilemmas of a philosopher and naturalist. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Dennett, D. C. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston: Brown & Little.
Dennett, D. C. (1995). Darwin’s dangerous idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Dennett, D. C. (1996). Kinds of minds: Toward an understanding of consciousness. Cambridge: Basic Books.
Dennett, D. C. (2006). The evolution of “why?”: An essay on Robert Brandom’s Making it explicit. http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/Brandom.pdf. Accessed 22 August 2010.
Dewey, J. (1896/1969–1991). The reflex arc concept in psychology. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The early works of John Dewey (Vol. 5, pp. 96–109). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1910/1969–1991). The influence of Darwin on philosophy. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 4, pp. 3–15). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1916/1969–1991). Democracy and education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 9). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1920/1969–1991). Reconstruction in philosophy. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The middle works of John Dewey (Vol. 12). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1925/1969–1991). Experience and nature. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 1). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1927/1969–1991). Body and mind. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 3, pp. 25–40). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1929/1969–1991). The quest for certainty. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 4). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Dewey, J. (1938/1969–1991). Logic: the theory of inquiry. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of John Dewey (Vol. 12). Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press.
Flanagan, O. (1996). The moral network. In R. N. McCauley (Ed.), The Churchlands and their critics (pp. 192–215). Cambridge: Blackwell.
Flanagan, O. (1998). Self-expressions: Mind, morals, and the meaning of life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Flanagan, O. (2002). The problem of the soul: Two visions of mind and how to reconcile them. New York: Basic Books.
Flanagan, O. (2007). The really hard problem: Meaning in a material world. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fodor, J. A. (2008). LOT2: The language of thought revisited. New York: Oxford University Press.
Freeman, W. J. (2000). How brains make up their minds. New York: Columbia University Press.
Hickman, L. A. (1990). John Dewey’s pragmatic technology. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Hickman, L. A. (2001). Philosophical tools for technological culture: Putting pragmatism to work. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Hickman, L. A. (2007). Pragmatism as post-postmodernism: Lessons from John Dewey. New York: Fordham University Press.
James, W. (1890/1950). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Dover Publications.
Johnson, M. (1987). The body in the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. (1993). Moral imagination: Implications of cognitive science for ethics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. (2007). The meaning of the body: Aesthetics of human understanding. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Johnson, M. (2009). Cognitive science. In J. Shook & J. Margolis (Eds.), A companion to pragmatism (pp. 369–377). Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.
Johnson, M. (2010). Cognitive science and Dewey’s theory of mind, thought, and language. In M. Cochran (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Dewey (pp. 123–144). Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
Laland, K. N., et al. (2000). Niche construction, biological evolution, and cultural change. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23, 131–175.
Noë, A. (2009). Out of our heads: Why you are not your brain, and other lessons from the biology of consciousness. New York: Hill and Wang.
Peirce, C. S. (1905/1998). What pragmatism is. In the Peirce Edition Project (Ed.), The essential Peirce: Selected philosophical writings (1893–1913) (Vol. 2, pp. 331–345). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.
Popp, J. (2007). Evolution’s first philosopher: John Dewey and the continuity of nature. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Power, M. L., & Schulkin, J. (2009). The evolution of obesity. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Putnam, H. (2001). The threefold cord: Mind, body, and world. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rockwell, W. T. (2005). Neither brain nor ghost: A nondualist alternative to the mind-brain identity theory. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Rorty, R. (1970). In defence of eliminative materialism. Review of Metaphysics, 24, 112–121.
Schulkin, J. (2004). Bodily sensibility: Intelligent action. New York: Oxford University Press.
Schulkin, J. (2009). Cognitive adaptation: A pragmatist perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sellars, W. (1963/1991). Science, perception and reality. Atascadero: Ridgeview Publishing Company.
Stemmer, B., & Schönle, P. W. (2000). Neuropragmatics in the twenty-first century. Brain and Language, 71, 233–236.
Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology, and the sciences of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Tschaepe, M. D. (2009). Pragmatics and pragmatic considerations in explanation. Contemporary Pragmatism, 6(2), 25–44.
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to Larry Hickman, John Shook, Shaun Gallagher, Jay Schulkin, Donald Dryden, Liz Swan, Judy Walker, Teed Rockwell, Steven Miller, Mark Tschaepe and, especially, Bill Bywater for their feedback and support through various drafts of this paper. I also am thankful for the helpful comments from anonymous reviewers.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Solymosi, T. Neuropragmatism, old and new. Phenom Cogn Sci 10, 347–368 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-011-9202-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-011-9202-6