Talk:Embodied philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Do either Johnson or Lakoff want to tie politics to ecoregions?

the field is not defined by them alone.

Most importantly, it is not defined by you, 24. AxelBoldt

Ecoregions as such, probably not explicitly? Ecology? Somewhat. Environment. Absolutely. (see below). But I didn't answer that way to cover for their lack of interst in the topic. Look, you tell me what the inclusion criteria are, e.g. Kant's Categorical Imperative has an "embodied" element, i.e. you are supposed to rely on your own cognition and assume something about the impact on others based on your similarity to them, a la Golden Rule. Am I allowed to say that the systems of philosophy that rely on naive individual projection, empathy and aesthetic are "embodied" to the degree that they rely on it? The "emotionalist school of moral philosophy" that gave rise to Adam Smith... is that embodied? What has emotion that is not embodied? You set the borders of the fence, and I'll fill in the pasture. I think of this evidently too broadly for Sanger, so, whatever, tell me how you bind meaning to J & L's words, and I'll tell you who else thinks that. 24

Embodiment is generally understood to imply that the environment or ecology that shapes cognition is responsible for at least part of the development of mind, as evidence by linguistic correspondence between biodiversity and linguistic diversity (see bioregional democracy where some of this stuff is cited.24

"Generally understood" by whom? Apparently not by the inventors of the term and the main proponents. (And don't hope for a second that bioregional democracy won't be cleaned up as well.) AxelBoldt

have you read any of Lakoff's political material? He's the most serious anti-globalist there is next to Zerzan (who isn't that serious). And yes, bioregional democracy should be cleaned up, but if you cut out the linguistic guts of it (democracy implies a common language rich enough to express all the phenomena that the public may have to talk and decide about), it won't make much sense. Many of my articles have key bridging points cut out for some vague reason, and are left making strange leaps. More specific feedback helps, and I'm grateful for this to the degree that you do it. The problem with going and cleaning up bioregional democracy right now is that there is no democracy on this wiki (;-)) and it is not in any one bioregion (;-)) so how does one demonstrate what should be included by example?24

I suspect this is just a pet idea of 24,

I don't have such unruly pets, Axel ;-) So far, by the way, of a few hundred contributions, only one (party disapproval) has proven to have insufficiently deep roots in academie or culture to be considered worthy of inclusion - considering I'm deliberately going to the edges of certain topics to find extreme views for illustration purposes, for the reader's sake by way of contrast (a dialectic style), that's pretty good.

not one of Johnson or Lakoff. References, please.

I could cite the linguistic connection, and stuff by Carol Moore on this issue in particular, but if you think this is a "pet idea" you likely don't understand the thesis or epigenetics of cognition - so these have to be explained too. Of course, some clown will

Your misunderstanding of epigenetics has been cleaned up in the meantime. AxelBoldt

it's a pretty damn broad "misunderstanding" - you simply replaced the evolutionary biologist's version with the molecular biologist's version. I assure you that I have sat through long boring lectures that covered all the topics I laid out as "epigenetic". Have you? Anyway that's covered in the talk for that article. Do as you will. 24

claim that linguistics and embodiment are "unrelated", which is contrary to the whole thesis. If one grants embodiment, then one grants the linguistic-ecology connection too - it seems

Lakoff doesn't as you admitted above, and it would seem that he knows his linguistics and grants embodiment, therefore your claim is provably wrong. AxelBoldt

I didn't say that Lakoff doesn't - quite the contrary - Lakoff would be the first to grant that the "metaphors we live by" come from our local living environment, e.g. gardens, ships, etc, and his strong preference for democracy and the "garden versus ship" metaphor implies to me that he does in fact understand this very very well. But we can ask him if you want.24

embodiment is probably the only satisfactory explanation for diversity of language matching diversity of ecology. Moore thinks Gandhi actually originated the connection between embodiment and ecology sans language, although he didn't call it that at the time, she thinks that's what he meant when he said Western civilization "would be a good idea", and she's got a pretty weighty set of related quotes on that issue. Of course, if he was not expressing an opinion on the imperialism of the English language, then he was not leaving a trail an academic would respect.24

However, some assumptions re: human cognitive bias and falsifiability of assertions regarding it seem to be shared by both schools.

It is unclear what "it" is and what "schools" we are talking about.

that's because every attempt to discuss the other schools has been censored. If you're going to listen to Larry Sanger about what schools of philosophy do and do not exist, you're going to have gaps in your coverage.24

No, it's because your writing was unclear. Nothing had been cut from your version at the time. AxelBoldt

so much hassle would be saved if you would separate complaints about bad writing from assertions that topics don't exist or aren't worth covering or where you personally see a lack or a bias. Really! Bad writing is pretty objectively defined, and isn't such an emotional issue that we need fight about it. Point out bad passages and they get rewritten. Simple. If you want me devoting my time to that, max your time spent finding bad or unclear or wrong (by typo or by spoonerism or even by intent ;-)) passages, and list 'em in talk. 24

What is an example of a political scientist who searches for an "embodied political economy"?

the ones who work on local economies, and bioregionally-tied economics, e.g. via LETS.

those may be factions that you like, but you cannot usurp a term such as "embodied political economy" and then put all nice people in that bag. AxelBoldt

nor would I, and nor did I - there's no article on that term, and I deliberately use it loosely with quotes to imply "here there be demons". It could be clearer. Such an embodied political economy would *have to be* from green economists since they study all the forms of embodiment (as "natural capital", and in the individual body in its interaction with same, and cognition of things like moral purchasing). So not all "nice people" (some Marxists, classicals and neoclassicals are nice people, and some (like Lovins) are even environmentalists who follow non-embodied measurement-heavy systems like Natural Capitalism). But, by "green" in "green economists" I mean specifically the ones who follow the Four Pillars of the Green Party or Ten Key Values of the Green Party, which is the global political use of that term. So if you take "political economy" and swap in "green" for "political" you get "green economy" and thus green economists. I am not putting all nice people in that bag, I am putting all who follow the four or ten in that bag. Admittedly, it's a big bag (and a big tent party), but that's why they're "green economists" and not a "green economics"... 24

But, in the strict cognitive sense of the term as used by Lakoff and Johnson, I'd say Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom" model is the closest thing to this ideal. Sen is an economist but his work verges on being a full political economy. This issue needs more explanation, so if the censorship or the claims that the topic doesn't exist are over for now, I'll fill it out. Otherwise, I won't bother, as I'm tired of educating Sanger 24

Does he, or anybody else except you, use the term "embodied political economy" for his work? I suspect not. Here's a suggestion: write an article about him and his work. That way, you don't have to invent new terms left and right. Every idiosyncratic invention of yours will eventually be removed, without any question. AxelBoldt

AxelBoldt, Saturday, April 13, 2002

I'm not "inventing" but I may miss some subtle distinctions those authors would make. It may be simpler, as a process, to start with the theorist, i.e. write George Lakoff or Mark Johnson or Amartya Sen or Carol Moore or Jane Jacobs first, lay out what makes them unique or weird, and then it becomes much easier for you to find contradictions between the fields they jointly created or are ceating, and their individual points of view. Is that sensible? 24

also, side note - Sanger claimed that there was no such thing as a "philosophy of body" or "body philosophers" - I am quite sure that a poll of philosophers worldwide which included all the schools that are listed in the articles here, and also included that term, even with "embodied philosophy" and "philosophy of action" already there, would cause > 51% of philosophers to check off that it *did* exist. If you added "feminist philosophy" and "queer philosophy" and "philosophy of medicine" then some might assert that "philosophy of body" was part of one of those, but the numbers would likely be about equal. In some ways, all philosophy is about the body and the proper use and disposal of it. 24

---

Removed passages copied from other web pages.

• why? Do you dispute the assertion that Kant gave up on his philosphy of mind? As it stands you are asserting that Kant never did give it up, that Carpenter is wrong, and that this philosophy is on an entirely different track 24

---

I won't have much time this week to clean up the articles and deal with these concerns, but here's a suggestion. Before the end of April, I'll have short articles on the "body" theorists as individuals so that others can interpret their views as easily as I can, and I'll lay out their most popular views in their own terms, so that no one concludes I'm trying to get away with something here. In the meantime I would be pleased if someone would try to read the CIA and September 11th 2001 articles and try to think like some anti-US protester... those articles simply do not satisfy "writing for the enemy", and as they stand are omitting many important and documented facts. See the talk on those articles... really, if I was to apply the same degree of "neutral" scrutiny to many of those articles as is applied to mine, there would be very little left of them. I don't know about you, but I appreciate specific feedback, nasty or nice... and I continue to thank you for it. 24

---

I'd have to say this article does not seem to clearly indicate which philosophers and schools it is discussing. The article implies that Mark Johnson and George Lakoff define the field, but, as a summary of Lakoff and Johnson, the article seems to miss the mark, or at least discuss things unnecessarily abstractly; their claims about "embodiment" cognition basically boil down to the idea that how we think is largely determined by the bodies we have, and the mechanisms those bodies have for dealing with the world. Additionally, while Lakoff and friends may or may not desire, say, "a more localized political science", this is hardly at the core of their embodiment ideas.

Now, if the claim is that the "field" of embodied philosophy is actually much broader than just Lakoff and Johnson, then the article may be on firmer ground. In that case, however, I'd like to hear more about who the other thinkers are, who has claimed it is appropriate to lump them together with Lakoff and Johnson, and the motivations for doing so. In its current state, the article reads like a not entirely NPOV original synthesis by one particular individual. --Ryguasu

I agree completely. Whoever wrote this article does not seem to get G. Lakoff at all. He's missed the basic insight and tried to twist it into something that it's not. Ryguasu expressess the basic idea well when we writes: "How we think is largely determined by the bodies we have." For example, we prefer to think of abstract things (like making a point) in terms of simple familiar things (like swinging a hammer).

---

Ok, I've totally started this article over. I think the term "embodied philosophy" is not used as it was described in the article - especially with the far-fetched connections to green economics - by anyone other than 24. I don't mean this as an attack on 24, but I'm generally suspicious of ideas held by one person and one person only, as Fred Bauder will probably attest to. Also, I'd love to be proven wrong, but I need to see some books, web sites, etc. that corroborate some of this page's original claims. --Ryguasu 07:56 Nov 25, 2002 (UTC)

---

For what it's worth, an article by feminist Julie A. Nelson suggests that some feminists may use the term "embodied rationality" to mean a certain "feminine" kind of rationality. The term seems to have positive connotations. Unfortunately, I don't know what feminists use the term in this way. I have strong doubts that this has much overlap with Lakoff and friends' ideas, but this might be worth investigating. --Ryguasu 22:19 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

---

I am attempting to start a small discussion on distinguishing this page from Embodiment. Please have a look at Talk:Embodiment. Thanks! --mporch 23:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)