Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences

, Volume 10, Issue 2, pp 277–296 | Cite as

Indian cognitivism and the phenomenology of conceptualization

  • Rajesh KasturiranganEmail author
  • Nirmalya Guha
  • Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad


We perform conceptual acts throughout our daily lives; we are always judging others, guessing their intentions, agreeing or opposing their views and so on. These conceptual acts have phenomenological as well as formal richness. This paper attempts to correct the imbalance between the phenomenal and formal approaches to conceptualization by claiming that we need to shift from the usual dichotomies of cognitive science and epistemology such as the formal/empirical and the rationalist/empiricist divides—to a view of conceptualization grounded in the Indian philosophical notion of “valid cognition”. Methodologically, our paper is an attempt at cross-cultural philosophy and cognitive science; ontologically, it is an attempt at marrying the phenomenal and the formal.


Conceptualization Indian philosophy Phenomenology Formal approaches to the mind Cognitive science 


  1. Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barsalou, L. W., Kyle Simmons, W., et al. (2003). Grounding conceptual knowledge in modality-specific systems. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(2), 84–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Carey, S. (2009). The origin of concepts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chinnaswami Shastri, P. A. (Ed.). (1929). Bṛ hatī of Prabhakara Misra with the Ṛ juvimala of Mahamahopadhyaya Salikanatha Misra. Banaras: Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office.Google Scholar
  5. Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Dravid, N. S. (1996). Nyāyakusumānjali of Udayanācārya. Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research.Google Scholar
  7. Evans, V., & Green, M. C. (2006). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1997). Words, thoughts, and theories. Cambridge: MIT Press. phone: 617-253-5643 ($30, plus shipping).Google Scholar
  9. Holyoak, K. J., & Morrison, R. G. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of thinking and reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (2006). How we reason. USA: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., et al. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Kusch, M (2007). “Psychologism.” Available at:
  13. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the flesh: The embodied mind and its challenge to Western thought. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  14. Lipton, P. (2000). Inference to the Best Explanation. In W. H. Newton-Smith (Ed.), A companion to the philosophy of science. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
  15. Marr, D. (1982). Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
  16. Matilal, B. K. (1968). The Navya-nyāya doctrine of negation: The semantics and ontology of negative statements in Navy-ayāya philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Meiland, J. W. (1976). Psychologism in logic: Husserl's critique. Inquiry, 19(1), 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 89–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Naess, A. (1954). Husserl on the apodictic evidence of ideal laws. Theoria, 20(1–3), 53–63.Google Scholar
  20. Noe, A. (2004). Action in perception. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  21. Peirce, C. S. (1931). 1966. The collected papers of Charles S. Peirce, 8 vols., C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, and AW Burks. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Reference to Peirce's papers will be designated CP followed by volume and paragraph number.Google Scholar
  22. Ram-Prasad, C. (2007). Indian philosophy and the consequences of knowledge: Themes in ethics, metaphysics and soteriology. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  23. Strawson, G. (1994). Mental reality. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  24. Tenenbaum, J. B., Griffiths, T. L., et al. (2006). Theory-based Bayesian models of inductive learning and reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10(7), 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Varela, F. J., & Thompson, E. (Eds.). (1991). The embodied mind: cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Zahavi, D. (2004). Intentionality and phenomenality: A phenomenological take on the hard problem. The Problem of Consciousness: New Essays in Phenomenological Philosophy of Mind. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rajesh Kasturirangan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Nirmalya Guha
    • 2
  • Chakravarthi Ram-Prasad
    • 3
  1. 1.National Institute of Advanced StudiesIndian Institute of Science CampusBangaloreIndia
  2. 2.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of TechnologyKanpurIndia
  3. 3.Religious Studies, Lancaster UniversityLancasterUK

Personalised recommendations