Advertisement

Embodied Rationality

  • Shaun Gallagher
Chapter

Abstract

Recent developments in embodied cognition in the field of cognitive science support an expanded notion of rationality. I attempt to explicate this expanded notion by introducing the concepts of embodied rationality and enactive hermeneutics. I argue that bodily performance is rational and that there is continuity between the rational movements of the body and reflective thinking understood as a skill.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Research on this paper was supported by the Australian Research Council Discovery Project “Minds in Skilled Performance” (DP170102987), and by the Humboldt Foundation’s Anneliese Maier Research Award.

References

  1. Alsmith, A. J. T., & de Vignemont, F. (2012). Embodying the mind and representing the body. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 3(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansuini, C., Giosa, L., Turella, L., Altoè, G. M., & Castiello, U. (2008). An object for an action, the same object for other actions: Effects on hand shaping. Experimental Brain Research, 185, 111–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansuini, C., Santello, M., Massaccesi, S., & Castiello, U. (2006). Effects of end-goal on hand shaping. Journal of Neurophysiology, 95, 2456–2465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aristotle. (350 BCEa). Nicomachean ethics. Trans. W. D. Ross. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html.
  5. Aristotle. (350 BCEb). On the parts of animals. Trans. W. Ogle. http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/parts_animals.html.
  6. Bredekamp, H. (2007). Galilei der Künstler. Die Zeichnung, der Mond, die Sonne. Akademie-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brincker, M. (2014). Navigating beyond ‘here & now’ affordances—On sensorimotor maturation and ‘false belief’ performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1433.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chomsky, N. (1976). Problems and mysteries in the study of human language. In Language in focus: Foundations, methods and systems (pp. 281–357). Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, A. (1999). An embodied cognitive science? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3(9), 345–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark, A., & Chalmers, D. (1998). The extended mind. Analysis, 58(1), 7–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cole, J., Gallagher, S., & McNeill, D. (2002). Gesture following deafferentation: A phenomenologically informed experimental study. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1(1), 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dewey, J. (1938). Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
  13. Dickens, C. (1908). Miscellaneous Papers: From the Morning Chronicle, the Daily News, the Examiner, All the Year Round, and Other Sources. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Di Paolo, E. A., Rohde, M., & De Jaegher, H. (2010). Horizons for the enactive mind: Values, social interaction, and play. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. A. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Toward a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 33–87). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dominey, P. F., Prescott, T., Bohg, J., Engel, A.K., Gallagher, S., & Heed, T., et al. (2016). Implications of action-oriented paradigm shifts in cognitive science. In Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dreyfus, H. L. (2005). Overcoming the myth of the mental: How philosophers can profit from the phenomenology of everyday expertise. In Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association (pp. 47–65). American Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
  17. Dreyfus, H. L. (2007). Why Heideggerian AI failed and how fixing it would require making it more Heideggerian. Philosophical Psychology, 20(2), 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engel, A. K. (2010). Directive minds: How dynamics shapes cognition. In J. Stewart, O. Gapenne, & E. Di Paolo (Eds.), Enaction: Towards a new paradigm for cognitive science (pp. 219–243). Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Engel, A. K., Maye, A., Kurthen, M., & König, P. (2013). Where’s the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(5), 202–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method. Trans. J. Weinsheimer & D. G. Marshall. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Gallagher, S. (2017). Enactivist interventions: Rethinking the mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gallagher, S. (2015). Doing the math: Calculating the role of evolution and enculturation in the origins of mathematical reasoning. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 119, 341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gallagher, S., & Allen, M. (2016). Active inference, enactivism and the hermeneutics of social cognition. Synthese.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1269-8.
  24. Gibson, J. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In R. Shaw & J. Bransford (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  25. Glenberg, A. M. (2010). Embodiment as a unifying perspective for psychology. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(4), 586–596.Google Scholar
  26. Goldman, A. I. (2014). The bodily formats approach to embodied cognition. In U. Kriegel (Ed.), Current controversies in philosophy of mind (pp. 91–108). New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  27. Goldstein, K., & Scheerer, M. (1964). Abstract and concrete behavior. An experimental study with special tests. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University. Reprint of Psychological Monographs 53(2), 1941.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Høffding, S. (2015). A phenomenology of expert musicianship. PhD Dissertation, Department of Philosophy, University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  29. Husserl, E. (1989). Ideas pertaining to a pure phenomenology and to a phenomenological philosophy, second book. Trans. R. Rojcewicz and A. Schuwer. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  30. Jeannerod, M. (1997). The cognitive neuroscience of action. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Kant, I. (1992). Concerning the ultimate ground of the differentiation of directions in space. In D. Walford & R. Meerbote (Eds.), The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. Theoretical Philosophy, 1755–1770 (pp. 365–372). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Koffka, K. (2013). Principles of Gestalt psychology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Marcel, G. (1949). Being and having. Trans. K. Farrer. Westminster, UK: Dacre Press.Google Scholar
  35. Marteniuk, R. G., MacKenzie, C. L., Jeannerod, M., Athenes, S., & Dugas, C. (1987). Constraints on human arm movement trajectories. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McDowell, J. (2007). What myth? Inquiry, 50(4), 338–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McNeill, D., Duncan, S., Cole, J., Gallagher, S., & Bertenthal, B. (2008). Neither or both: Growth points from the very beginning. Interaction Studies, 9(1), 117–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Menary, R. (Ed.). (2010). The extended mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Merleau-Ponty, M. (2012). Phenomenology of perception. Trans. D. A. Landes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  40. Meteyard, L., Cuadrado, S. R., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2012). Coming of age: A review of embodiment and the neuroscience of semantics. Cortex, 48(7), 788–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nachtomy, O. (2008). Leibniz’s rationality: Divine intelligibility and human intelligibility. In M. Dascal (Ed.), Leibniz: What kind of rationalist? (pp. 73–82). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pezzulo, G., Barsalou, L. W., Cangelosi, A., Fischer, M. H., McRae, K., & Spivey, M. J. (2011). The mechanics of embodiment: a dialog on embodiment and computational modeling. In A. Borghi & D. Pecher (Eds.), Embodied and grounded cognition (p. 196). Frontiers E-books.Google Scholar
  43. Pulvermüller, F. (2005). Brain mechanisms linking language and action. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 6, 576–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Quaeghebeur, L., Duncan, S., Gallagher, S., Cole, J., & McNeill, D. (2014). Aproprioception and gesture. In C. Müller, E. Fricke, A. Cienki, S. H. Ladewig & D. McNeill (Eds.), Handbook on body—language—communication (2048–2061). De Gruyter-Mouton Publisher.Google Scholar
  45. Rietveld, E., & Kiverstein, J. (2014). A rich landscape of affordances. Ecological Psychology, 26(4), 325–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Robertson, L. C., & Treisman, A. (2010). Consciousness: Disorders. In E. B. Goldstein (Ed.), Encyclopedia of perception. New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Salice, A., Høffding, S., & Gallagher, S. (2017). Putting plural self-awareness into practice. Topoi.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11245-017-9451-2
  48. Sartori, L., Becchio, C., & Castiello, U. (2011). Cues to intention: The role of movement information. Cognition, 119, 242–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thompson, E. (2007). Mind in life: Biology, phenomenology and the sciences of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Thompson, E., & Varela, F. (2001). Radical embodiment: Neural dynamics and consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(10), 418–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  52. Zahavi, D. (2013). Mindedness, mindlessness and first-person authority. In J. K. Schear (Ed.), Mind, reason, and being-in-the-world: The McDowell-Dreyfus debate (pp. 320–340). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MemphisMemphisUSA
  2. 2.University of WollongongWollongongAustralia

Personalised recommendations