The project of this paper is to synthesize enactivist cognitive science and practice theory in order to develop a new account of pretend play. Pretend play is usually conceived of as a representationalist phenomenon where a pretender projects a fictional mental representation onto reality. It thus seems that pretense can only be explained in representationalist terms. In this paper, we oppose this usual approach. We instead propose not only new explanatory tools for pretend play, but also a fundamental reconceptualization of (...) the phenomena of pretend play, that is, of the very explanandum of theories of pretense. To do so, we suggest combining the turn to action and embodiment in the cognitive sciences with the practice turn in the humanities. From our point of view, pretend play has to be seen in its role in human life as a whole, which is to help children to learn to master the complex sociocultural contingencies of the manifold social practices that make up social reality. Pretend play should therefore be conceived as alternative sense-making that is always related, in varying ways, to ordinary social practices. Pretenders do not need to project mental representations onto reality, but make sense of their surroundings in different ways than encultured adults in ordinary practices. In the paper, we spell out this view and show how it enables an enactivist reconceptualization of imagination, intentions and knowledge, which are usually thought of as being available only to representationalist accounts of pretense. (shrink)

The project of this paper is to synthesize enactivist cognitive science and practice theory in order to develop a new account of pretend play. Pretend play is usually conceived of as a representationalist phenomenon where a pretender projects a fictional mental representation onto reality. It thus seems that pretense can only be explained in representationalist terms. In this paper, we oppose this usual approach. We instead propose not only new explanatory tools for pretend play, but also a fundamental reconceptualization of (...) the phenomena of pretend play, that is, of the very explanandum of theories of pretense. To do so, we suggest combining the turn to action and embodiment in the cognitive sciences with the practice turn in the humanities. From our point of view, pretend play has to be seen in its role in human life as a whole, which is to help children to learn to master the complex sociocultural contingencies of the manifold social practices that make up social reality. Pretend play should therefore be conceived as alternative sense-making that is always related, in varying ways, to ordinary social practices. Pretenders do not need to project mental representations onto reality, but make sense of their surroundings in different ways than encultured adults in ordinary practices. In the paper, we spell out this view and show how it enables an enactivist reconceptualization of imagination, intentions and knowledge, which are usually thought of as being available only to representationalist accounts of pretense. (shrink)

This article develops an ecological framework for understanding collective action. This is contrasted with approaches familiar from the collective intentionality debate, which treat individuals as fundamental units of collective action. Instead, we turn to social ecological psychology and dynamical systems theory and argue that they provide a promising framework for understanding collectives as the central unit in collective action. However, we submit that these approaches do not yet appreciate enough the relevance of social identities for collective action. To analyze this (...) aspect, we build on key insights from social identity theory and synthesize it with embodied and ecological accounts of perception and action. This results in the proposal of two new types of affordances. For an individual who enacts her "embodied social identity" of being a member of a particular collective, there can be what we call embodied social identity affordances. Moreover, when several individuals dynamically interact with each other against the background of their embodied social identities, this might lead to the emergence of a collective, which we understand as a dynamically constituted and ecologically situated perception-action system consisting of several individuals enacting relevant embodied social identity affordances. Building on previous work in social ecological psychology, we suggest that there can be genuine collective affordances, that is, affordances whose subject is not an individual, but a collective. (shrink)

Recent empirical findings from social psychology, ecological psychology, and embodied cognitive science indicate that situational factors crucially shape the course of human behavior. For instance, it has been shown that finding a dime, being under the influence of an authority figure, or just being presented with food in easy reach often influences behavior tremendously. These findings raise important new questions for the philosophy of action: Are these findings a threat to classical conceptions of human agency? Are humans passively pushed around (...) by situational factors, or are there agential aspects in the way we spontaneously experience and react to situations? How can one conceptualize the pervasive influence of situational factors on human action? What are situations in the first place, and how should the influence of these situations on action be thought of? This paper sets out to develop a new conceptual repertoire for thinking about the influence of situations on action, drawing on research from ecological psychology as well as from embodied and enactive cognitive science. The key proposal is the development of a philosophical sensorimotor account of agency: Action, it is proposed, should be conceived of as constant dynamical interaction of agential and environmental factors – factors which should all be conceptualized in new ways. (shrink)

Unreflective action conceals an unexpected rationality of everyday life. Yet can we analyze unreflective action using terms such as intention and conviction? Are individuals responsible for their unreflective action, too, if they do not stand behind it with their conscious intent? To answer these questions, this study undertakes a fundamental reconceptualization of human action.".

There has been considerable progress in investigating collective actions in the last decades. However, the real progress is different from what many scholars take it to be. It lies in the fact that there is by now a wealth of different approaches from a variety of fields. Each approach has carved out fruitful mechanisms for explaining collective action, but is also faced with limitations. Given that situation, we submit that the next step in investigating collective action is to acknowledge the (...) plurality of approaches and bring them into dialogue. With this aim in mind, the present article discusses the strengths and weaknesses of some of the to our mind most relevant approaches to collective action in current debates. We begin with the collective intentionality framework, the team reasoning approach, and social identity theory. Then, we move to ecological social psychology, participatory sense-making, and, through the lenses of those frameworks, dynamical systems theory. Finally, we discuss practice theory. Against this background, we provide a proposal for a synthesis of the successful explanatory mechanisms as they have been carved out by the different research programs. The suggestion is, roughly, to understand collective action as dynamical interaction of a self-organizing system with its environment, shaped by a process of collective sense-making. (shrink)

In this text, we will introduce the reader to the special issue on _Pretense and Imagination from the Perspective of 4E Cognitive Science_. To do so, we will introduce the concept of 4E cognition and showcase what the available 4E approaches to pretense and imagination look like, in particular if they are contrasted with current cognitivist accounts. Against this background, we provide an overview of the articles included in this special issue.

Drawing on resources from Heidegger, social theory, ecological psychology, and enactive cognitive science, this paper presents novel analyses of social normativity and social change. The key idea is that we humans are often stunned with the practical necessities we experience in everyday action: Often, it feels hard or even impossible for us to act differently from what “one” has to do – for instance, it just feels “wrong” to go shopping in a dressing gown. However, a philosophical analysis reveals that (...) we only experience the world in the way we experience it because we are the beings that we are: There are subjective background conditions for bringing about meaningful experiences, background conditions which only philosophical reflection can make us aware of. These background conditions, it is suggested, are shaped and transformed by social conventions and public interpretations of the world. Thus, the point of view from which we experience the world is socially shaped – a fact most humans are ignorant about when absorbed in action. Yet apprehending this fact, and realizing that the interpretation which we ordinarily presuppose is radically contingent is the first step of becoming “authentic”. Individuals gaining this insight understand that it is to an important part up to them how the world shows up. Thus, they can modify their attitude toward the world. Likewise, it is suggested, even a whole society can become socially authentic and decide which of the contingent social conventions which constitute it as a society should be retained and which modified. (shrink)

Wie beeinflussen sich Recht und Technik? Im ersten Teil dieses Bandes hinterfragen die Autorinnen und Autoren, ob es tatsächlich die rechtliche Entwicklung sein kann, die die Rahmenbedingungen für den technologischen und den damit möglicherweise einhergehenden gesellschaftlichen Fortschritt setzt – oder ob vielmehr das Recht nicht antizipiert, sondern nur reagiert. Damit und mit der globalen Dimension des Themas einher geht die Erkenntnis, dass es vielleicht an der Zeit ist, in einer weltweiten Informationsgesellschaft an neue, auch außerhalb des Rechts liegende Regulierungsansätze zu (...) denken. Im zweiten Teil des Bandes fragen die Autorinnen und Autoren nach der Relevanz des „practice turn“ für Recht und Moral. In ihren Beiträgen zeigen sie unter Rückgriff auf verschiedene philosophische Ansätze, was es für das Verständnis von Normen, Pflichten und Rechten bedeutet, wenn man diese als Teil sozialer Praktiken betrachtet: Wird so ein differenzierteres Bild gewonnen, das neue Möglichkeiten für die Kritik an bestehenden Normen eröffnet? Liegt hier theoretisches Potential für Völker- und Menschenrechtsdebatten? Oder wird die Möglichkeit normativer Begründungen dabei provinzialisiert und am Ende gar zugunsten von sozialtheoretischen Beschreibungen aufgegeben? (shrink)

This review takes a look at Ezio Di Nucci’s new book Mindlessness. In this book, Di Nucci discusses the important topic of unreflective, spontaneous, habitual, and “automatic” action, thereby showing how much Analytic philosophy of action can profit from recent empirical investigations of unreflective behavior. The review situates Di Nucci’s project in its dialectical and historical context, summarizes the key theses of the particular chapters, and concludes with a evaluation of the book.

In his recent paper “Getting Real About Pretense: A Radical Enactivist Proposal”, Daniel Hutto raises several objections against our so-called praxeological enactivist account of pretense (Weichold & Rucińska 2022). He argues that one should, instead, adopt his radical enactivist explanation of pretend play. In this short reply, we defend our praxeological enactivist account against his objections, and argue that it has crucial advantages over his radical enactivist alternative.

This paper poses a new challenge to control-based theories of moral responsibility. Control-based theories – as defended, for instance, by Aristotle and John Martin Fischer – hold that an agent is responsible for an action only if she acted voluntarily and knew what she was doing. However, this paper argues that there is a large class of cases of unreflective behavior of which the following is true: the persons involved did not have the kind of control required by control-based theories, (...) yet we intuitively take the persons involved to be morally responsible. (shrink)

Hannes Worthmanns Praktische Intelligenz und die Zweiteilung des Wissens ist in vielerlei Hinsicht ein exzellentes Buch: Es ist kristallklar formuliert, schön geschrieben, leicht zu lesen und liefert eine wohlinformierte Übersicht über den state of art in der Debatte um Wissen-Wie. Vor allem aber argumentiert der Autor fair und gründlich gegen nahezu sämtliche Positionen in der Debatte, um an ihre Stelle dann seine eigene spannende und originelle Neu-Konzeptualisierung von Wissen-Wie zu setzen. All diese Faktoren zusammen – kristallklare Thesen, Argumente gegen alle (...) anderen, eine grundlegende Neu-Konzeptionalisierung – können nur zu einem führen: Man fühlt sich provoziert und will umgehend kritisch mit dem Autor diskutieren. Und das ist natürlich genau die Reaktion, die ein gelungener Debattenbeitrag in der Analytischen Philosophie auslösen sollte. Ich bin froh, an dieser Stelle die Gelegenheit zu haben, exemplarisch einige mögliche Stränge einer solchen kritischen Diskussion vorführen zu können. Dabei werde ich mich nicht scheuen, in den beiden Teilen dieses Textes das herauszufordern, was man als die beiden Hauptthesen Worthmanns ansehen könnte. (shrink)