Advertisement

Axiomathes

, Volume 29, Issue 6, pp 599–606 | Cite as

Subject of Cognition from a Cultural Neuroscience Perspective

  • Valentin BazhanovEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

This paper assesses, from a philosophical point of view, the latest cultural neuroscience results that suggest the traditional interpretation of subject of cognition be essentially reconstructed. We must move from a universalistic interpretation of cognitive process (mostly manifested in a classical Kantian transcendentalism) to an interpretation taking into explicit account the socio-cultural context of the subject’s activity, as well as often its biological nature. The principle of cultural and cognitive neurobiological determination of knowledge acquisition is proposed. We claim that subject of cognition is fixed in the historical and cultural context and it neurobiologically determined, and thus classical Kantian transcendentalism should be reconsidered in light of recent neuroscience research.

Keywords

Subject of cognition Transcendentalism Cultural neuroscience Activity approach Cognitive strategies Collectivistic and individualistic cultures 

Notes

References

  1. Agrillo C, Piffer L, Bisazza A, Butterworth B (2012) Evidence for two numerical systems that are similar in humans and guppies. PLoS ONE 7(2):e31923.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031923 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baldwin JM (1896) A new factor in evolution. Am Nat 30:441–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bjornsdottir TR, Tskhay KO, Ishii K, Rule NO (2017) Cultural differences in perceiving and processing emotions: a holistic approach to person perception. Cult Brain 5:105–124.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40167-017-0053-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chiao J, Hariri A, Harada T, Mano Y, Sadato N, Parish T, Iidaka T (2010) Theory and methods in cultural neuroscience. SCAN 2010(5):356–361.  https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsq063 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dafermos M (2015) Activity theory: theory and practice. In: Parker I (ed) Handbook of critical psychology. Routledge, London, New York, pp 261–270Google Scholar
  6. Falikman MV, Cole M (2014)  « Kul’turnaja revoljucija » v kognitivnoj nauke: ot nejronnoj plastichnosti do geneticheskih mehanizmov priobretenija kul’turnogo opyta (Cultural revolution” in cognitive science: from neuron plasticity to genetic mechanisms of gaining cultural experience). Kul’turno-istoricheskaja psihologija 10(3):4–18 (in Russian) Google Scholar
  7. Han S, Ma Y (2014) Cultural differences in human brain activity: a quantitative meta-analysis. NeuroImage 99:293–300.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimaGE.2014.05.062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hersh P (2008) On platonism. Eur Math Soc News. June 17–18Google Scholar
  9. Hintikka J (1969) Semantics for propositional attitudes. In: Linsky L (ed) Models for modalities. Springer, Dordrecht Reidel, pp 87–111.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1711-4_6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jednorog K, Altarelli I, Monzalvo K, Fluss J, Dubois J, Billard C, Dehaene-Lambertz G, Ramus F (2012) The influence of socioeconomic status on children’s brain structure. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/annotation/47661de2-2c53-4396-9f88-06b5ad233566 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lorenz K (1962) Kant’s doctrine of the a priori in the light of contemporary biology. In: von Bertalanffy L, Rapoport A (eds) General systems: yearbook of the society for general systems research, vol VII. Society for general systems research, New York, pp 23–35Google Scholar
  12. Nisbett RE (2003) The geography of thought. How Asians and Westerners think differently…and why. The Free Press, Ney York, London, Toronto, Sydney, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  13. Nisbett RE (2007) A psychological perspective: cultural psychology—past, present, and future. In: Kitayama S, Cohen D (eds) Handbook of cultural psychology. Wiley, New York, pp 837–846Google Scholar
  14. Nisbett RE, Peng K, Choi I, Norenzayan A (2001) Culture and systems of thought: holistic versus analytic cognition. Psychol Rev 108(2):291–310.  https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-295X.108.2.291 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Peng K, Nisbett RE (1999) Culture, dialectics, and reasoning about contradiction. Am Psychol 54(9):741–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Shi-xu, Feng-Bing (2012) Contemporary Chinese communication made understandable: a cultural psychological perspective. Cult Psychol 19(1):3–19.  https://doi.org/10.1177/135-67X12464985 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Talhelm T, Zhang X, Oishi S, Shimin C, Duan D, Lan X, Kitayama S (2014) Large-scale psychological differences within China explained by rice versus wheat agriculture. Science 244:603–608.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1246850 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Wexler BE (2011) Neuroplasticity: biological evolution’s contribution to cultural evolution. In: Han S, Poppel E (eds) Culture and neural frames of cognition and communication. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 1–17Google Scholar
  19. Wilson M (2002) Six views of embodied cognition. Psychon Bull Rev 9:625–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ulyanovsk State UniversityUlyanovskRussia

Personalised recommendations