Dialectics and sense-making; German idealism and enactive approach to cognition

Centrum Badań nad Historią Intelektualną Renesansu (Centre for the History of Renaissance Knowledge) zaprasza na kolejne seminarium z cyklu ‘Renaissance Mind‘. Dnia 12 czerwca br. (poniedziałek), o godz. 14:00, w sali 154 Pałacu Staszica (Nowy Świat 72, Warszawa), Mgr Natalia Zakrzewska, doktorantka GSSR, wygłosi seminarium pt. ‘Dialectics and sense-making; German idealism and enactive approach to cognition‘ (wystąpienie w jęz. angielskim). Wydarzenie będzie dostępne w formie hybrydowej, także na platformie Zoom.
Dane do logowania: https://zoom.us/j/91901528740?pwd=dDVHclFDN1NqQUFKQ3lScFl6WlBoQT09.
Identyfikator spotkania: 919 0152 8740. Kod dostępu: 728525.

Abstract

One of the significant branches of the enactive approach to cognition is concerned with sense-making. The generation of meaning and participatory sense-making in the social context in an enactive approach to cognition needs a more coherent explanation of normativity and profits from applying Hegelian dialectics. In this presentation, I will emphasize how Hegel’s philosophy can help explain this process because of the application of the method of dialectics. This evaluation supports the overall hypothesis that only with the help of German idealism, especially Hegelian philosophy enactive approach, can be salvaged in the debates on cognitive science and philosophy of mind. The significant area where Hegelian philosophy can be helpful for an enactive approach is the process of meaning-making in a social context.

The linguistic and dynamic framework that Di Paolo (Di Paolo et al. 2018) proposes concerns a broader scope of embodied cognition that is the cornerstone of the enactive approach to cognition in general. There are several areas in the enactive approach where the Hegelian framework is successfully applied, or enactive thinkers notice the resemblance and significance of Hegel’s dialectics (Gallagher, 2009; Zaslawski, 2018). Nonetheless, this tradition still does not fully account for the idealistic, logical scope of Hegelian thought and fruitful method of dialectics. The Hegelian remarks are often scattered and incomplete, which creates both gap and opportunity for novel insight to arise in the contemporary debate. Di Paolo (Di Paolo et al. 2018) links this framework with autopoiesis. Nonetheless, his indications are not coherently evaluated and relatively marginal to the argument.

The main reason for introducing embodied linguistics is the rejection of the representational theory of mind. Nonetheless, this rejection carries uncomfortable consequences and a need for academic clarification which Hegel’s philosophy can illuminate.

References:
1. Di Paolo, E. A., Cuffari, E. C., De Jaegher, H. (2018). Linguistic Bodies: The Continuity Between Life and Language. United Kingdom: MIT Press.
2. Zaslawski N. (2018) Neurodialectics: A proposal for philosophy of cognitive and social sciences. Constructivist Foundations Vol. 14.
3. Gallagher, S. Crisafi, A. (2009) Hegel and the extended mind, Springer-Verlag London Limited.
4. Hegel, G. W. F., (1977) Phenomenology of Spirit, Clarendon Press.

– – – – –  

classic-editor-remember:

block-editor