Advertisement

Place and Placedness

  • Jeff MalpasEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Contributions To Phenomenology book series (CTPH, volume 95)

Abstract

This paper explores the difference between the notions of place and placedness. This difference relates to an important point of differentiation between genuinely a topographical approach and those other approaches that tend to dominate in the existing literature, including approaches associated with ‘situated cognition’. If place is taken as the primary concept, as I argue it should be taken, then that means that being-placed, as it might be viewed as determinative of experience and cognition, has first to be understood in relation to place.

Keywords

Being-placed Bound Limit Place Placedness Philosophical topography Philosophical topology Situated cognition Situation Situatedness Subjectivism 

References

  1. Campbell, J. 1995. Past, Space and Self. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Casey, E. 2009. Getting Back into Place. 2nd ed. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Dreyfus, H.L. 1972. What Computers Can't Do. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. ———. 1990. Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger’s Being and Time, Division I. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. ———. 1992. What computers can’t do, 2nd edn. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Heidegger, M. 1971. Building dwelling thinking. In Poetry, Language, Thought, ed. A. Hofstadter. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  7. ———. 1997. Kant and the Problem of Metaphysics, 5th enlarged edn. Trans. R. Taft. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  8. ———. 2004. Four Seminars. Trans. A. Mitchell and F. Raffoul. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  9. ———. 2012. Contributions to Philosophy. Trans. R. Rojcevicz and D. Vallega-Neu. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Malpas, J. 2018. Place and experience, 2nd edn. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. ———. 2006. Heidegger’s Topology. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2012. Heidegger, space and world. In Heidegger and Cognitive Science, ed. J. Kiverstein and M. Wheeler. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2015a. Self, other, thing: Triangulation and topography in post-Kantian philosophy. Philosophy Today 59: 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ———. 2015b. Place and singularity. In The intelligence of place: Topographies and poetics, ed. J. Malpas, 65–92. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  15. ———. 2016. Placing understanding/understanding place. Sophia.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11841-016-0546–9.
  16. ———. 2017. Die Wende zum Ort und die Wiedergewinnung des Menschen: Heideggers Kritik des “Humanismus” [The Turn to Place and the Retrieval of the Human: Heidegger’s Critique of “Humanism”]. In Heideggers Weg in die Moderne. Eine Verortung der “Schwarzen Hefte” [Heidegger Forum 13], eds. H.-H. Gander und M. Striet. Frankfurt a.M: Klostermann.Google Scholar
  17. Malpas, Jeff. 2017. Thinking topographically: Place, space, and geography. Il Cannocchiale: rivista di studi filosofici42: 25-54.Google Scholar
  18. McCahon, C. 1972. Colin McCahon: A Survey Exhibition. Auckland: Auckland City Art Gallery.Google Scholar
  19. Schacht, R. 2013. The place of mimesis and the apocalyptic: Toward a topology of the near and far. Contagion: Journal of Violence, Mimesis, and Culture 20: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tuan, Y.-F. 2001. Space and Place The Perspective of Experience. 5th ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  21. Young, J. 2004. Heidegger’s Philosophy of Art. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TasmaniaHobartAustralia

Personalised recommendations