General Aim
A unified theory of understanding, explanation and coherence.
Specific Aims and Steps
-
Development of a theory of explanatory coherence including
-
A conception of coherence for propositions and beliefs
-
A conception of coherence for interacting propositional attitudes
-
A conception of coherence for various non-propositional attitudes, moods and
sensations
-
A conception of coherence for decisions and actions
-
Applications to
-
explanations in the natural sciences,
-
explanations in the social sciences,
-
explanations in psychology,
-
the folk psychological understanding of persons,
-
the folk psychological explanation of actions,
-
the interpretation of linguistic utterances and conversations,
-
the interpretation of texts.
Background
Objects of understanding: We can understand (or fail to understand):
-
persons and other intentional systems;
-
their individual and collective actions (including speech acts, conversations
and all sorts of nonverbal sign behavior and communicative acts);
-
rules governing actions (and various rule-constituted entities, such as
practices, games, institutions or rituals); and
-
certain products of such actions (including linguistic expressions - words,
sentences, texts; pictures, sculptures, compositions, buildings; tools,
machines, computers and other artifacts). (Cp. Meggle 1978; Moravcsik 1979;
Föllesdal 1981; Rosenberg 1981; Dennett 1987; Schurz 1988, 245-268; von
Wright/ Meggle 1989; Schurz/ Lambert 1994; Nemirow 1995; Scholz 1999, Verstehen
und Rationalität; Scholz, in press, Verstehen.)
Understanding, interpretation and explanation. Often, understanding will be
direct, unmediated by inference, hypothesis formation or theory-building. In
other cases, we have to struggle in order to arrive at an adequate
understanding. We call such efforts (attempts at) interpretation. Whereas
(immediate) understanding is in some respects close to perception,
interpretation is more like theory building. More specifically,
interpretations, typically, are based on inferences to the best explanation.
The concepts understanding and explanation are not to be contrasted, since they
are closely interrelated. Understanding involves the capacity to give
explanations; and successful explanation leads to understanding.
Working Hypotheses
- Despite the variety in the objects of understanding, there are close
relationships between the major forms of understanding and interpretation.
- For all the objects of understanding and interpretation, there is an
intersubjectively established difference between understanding (i.e., correct
understanding) and not understanding (i.e., misunderstanding or failure to
understand).
- There are overarching general principles of interpretation.
- The central forms of understanding and interpretation, typically, involve
ascriptions of propositional attitudes: beliefs, wishes, intentions,
higher-order attitudes etc.
Theses that will be argued for in detail
- The ascription of propositional attitudes and other mental states and events
is a holistic enterprise. The holism that is in play here is not just a
methodological matter (as is the confirmation holism that is characteristic
also of the natural sciences). What we have here is a constitutive holism,
i.e.: The psychological realm is holistically constituted. (Cp. Davidson 1984;
Malpas 1992, ch. 3.)
The intentional attitudes are not independent of the connections which obtain
between them. This connectedness and interconnectedness of the psychological
can be explicated in terms of (various forms of) coherence.
- Our attempts to interpret persons, actions and artifacts are guided by
certain powerful presumptions, most prominent among them: presumptions of
truth, consistency, coherence and rationality. These general principles of
interpretation are presumption rules with rebuttable presumptions.
- Coherence proves to be central: Logical consistency is at best one component
in an adequate conception of coherence. And, theoretical and practical
rationality is largely a matter of (various forms of) coherence. Such coherence
involves not just the relative absence of inconsistency among the attitudes,
but also their integration in a stronger and more positive sense, i.e., there
sould be relations of implication, of confirmation and explanation between
various attitudes.
Publications in connection with the project
The Concept of Understanding
Scholz, Oliver Robert, in press, Verstehen. In: Sandkühler, Hans Jörg
(Hrsg.): Enzyklopädie der Philosophie, Hamburg: Felix Meiner.
---, 1999, Verstehen und Rationalität. Untersuchungen zu den Grundlagen
von Hermeneutik und Sprachphilosophie (Philosophische Abhandlungen, Band 76),
Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
Understanding persons
---, in preparation, Personen verstehen, Lecture in Erfurt, April 29, 1999
---, 1999, Verstehen und Rationalität. Untersuchungen zu den Grundlagen
von Hermeneutik und Sprachphilosophie (Philosophische Abhandlungen, Band 76),
Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
Understanding actions
--- , in press, Präsumtionen, Rationalität und Verstehen. In:
Nida-Rümelin, Julian (Hrsg.): Rationality - Realism - Revision/
Rationalität - Realismus - Revision (ANALYOMEN 3. Proceedings of the 3rd
Conference 'Perspectives in Analytical Philosophy'), Berlin and New York:
Walter de Gruyter.
--- , in press, Rationalitätshintergrund, Interpretation und Verstehen.
In: Mittelstraß, Jürgen (Hrsg.): Die Zukunft des Wissens (XVIII.
Deutscher Kongreá für Philosophie, Konstanz).
Understanding linguistic utterances
---, 1999, Verstehen und Rationalität. Untersuchungen zu den Grundlagen
von Hermeneutik und Sprachphilosophie (Philosophische Abhandlungen, Band 76),
Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann.
--- , 1998, Wahrheitshintergrund und Interpretation. In: Studia philosophica
58, 27-54.
Testimony and the Epistemology of Understanding
--- , in press, What can be learned from testimony. In: Grundmann, Thomas
(ed.): Challenges to Traditional Epistemology.
Understanding arguments
--- , in press, Was heißt es, eine Argumentation zu verstehen? - Zur
konstitutiven Rolle von Präsumtionen. in: Lueken, Geert-Lueke (ed.): Logik
und Argumentation (Leipziger Schriften zur Philosophie), Leipzig.
Understanding pictures
--- , 1998, Was heißt es, ein Bild zu verstehen? In: Sachs-Hombach,
Klaus/ Rehkämper, Klaus (eds.): Bild - Bildwahrnehmung - Bildverarbeitung.
Interdisziplinäre Beiträge zur Bildwissenschaft, Wiesbaden: Deutscher
Universitäts-Verlag, 105-117.
Scientific and philosophical understanding
--- , 1999, Was heißt: etwas in der Philosophie verstehen? In: Raatzsch,
Richard (ed.): Philosophieren über Philosophie (Leipziger Schriften zur
Philosophie 10), Leipzig, 75-95
Literature pertinent to the project
Bartelborth, Thomas, 1996, Begründungsstrategien, Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
Bromberger, Sylvain, 1992, On What We Know We Don't Know, Explanation, Theory,
Linguistics, and How Questions Shape Them, Chicago and London: The University
of Chicago Press.
Carruthers, Peter/ Smith, Peter K. (eds.), 1996, Theories of Theories of Mind,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cherniak, Christopher, 1986, Minimal Rationality, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Christensen, Scott M./ Turner, Dale R., (eds.), 1993, Folk Psychology and the
Philosophy of Mind, Hillsdale, N.J., Hove and London. 1993
Cooper, Neil, 1994, Understanding. In: Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society,
Suppl. Vol. LXVIII, 1-26.
Cooper, Neil, 1995, The Epistemology of Understanding. In: Inquiry 38, 205-215.
Darmstadter, H., 1971, Consistency of Belief. In: The Journal of Philosophy 68,
301-310.
Davidson, Donald, 1980, Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford.
Davidson, Donald, 1984, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford.
Davidson, Donald, 1995, Could There Be a Science of Rationality? In:
International Journal of Philosophical Studies 3, 1-16.
Davies, Martin/ Stone, Tony, 1998, Folk Psychology and Mental Simulation. In:
O'Hear, Anthony (ed.), 1998, Current Issues in Philosophy of Mind, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 53-82.
Davies, Martin/ Stone, Tony (ed.), 1995a, Folk Psychology: The Theory of Mind
Debate, Oxford.
Davies, Martin/ Stone, Tony (ed.), 1995b, Mental Simulation: Evaluations and
Applications, Oxford.
Dennett, Daniel C., 1987, The Intentional Stance, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Dennett, Daniel C., 1987, The Interpretation of Texts, People and Other
Artifacts. In: Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50, Suppl., 177-194.
Fllesdal, Dagfinn, 1981, Understanding and Rationality. In: Parret, Herman/
Bouveresse, Jacques (ed.), 1981, Meaning and Understanding, Berlin and New
York, 154-168.
Franklin, Richard L., 1995, The Search for Understanding, New York/ Washington,
D.C./ San Francisco 1995.
Friedman, Michael, 1974, Explanation and Scientific Understanding. In: The
Journal of Philosophy, 71, 5-19.
Harman, Gilbert, 1986, Change in View. Principles of Reasoning, Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Holoyoak, Keith J./ Thagard, Paul, 1995, Mental Leaps. Analogy in Creative
Thought, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Hunter, David, 1998, Understanding and Belief. In: Philosophy and
Phenomenological Research, 58.
Kitcher, Philip, 1976, Explanation, Conjunction and Unification. In: The
Journal of Philosophy 73, 207-212.
Kitcher, Philip/ Salmon, Wesley C., 1987, Van Fraassen on Explanation. In: The
Journal of Philosophy 84, 315-330.
Kitcher, Philip/ Salmon, Wesley C. (eds.), 1989, Scientific Explanation
(Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science), Minneapolis.
Köhler, Wolfgang, 1990, Können Personen ein Gegenstand des Verstehens
sein? Ein Beitrag zur Hermeneutik der Person. In: Analyse & Kritik 12,
89-110.
Künne, Wolfgang, 1981, Verstehen und Sinn. In: Allgemeine Zeitschrift fr
Philosophie, 6, 1-16.
Lewis, David, 1974, Radical Interpretation. In: Synthese 23, 331-344.
Lewis, David, 1983, Radical Interpretation & Postscripts to Radical
Interpretation. In: idem, 1983, Philosophical Papers, Volume I, New York and
Oxford, 108-121.
Mahajan, Gurpreet, 1997, Explanation and Understanding in the Human Sciences,
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Second Edition.
McDowell, John, 1981, Anti-Realism and the Epistemology of Understanding. In:
Parret, Herman/ Bouveresse, Jacques (ed.), 1981, Meaning and Understanding,
Berlin and New York, 225-248.
Meggle, Georg, 1978, Eine Handlung verstehen. In: Apel, K.-O. (ed.)., 1978,
Neue Versuche über Erklären und Verstehen, Frankfurt/ Main, 234-263.
Meggle, Georg, 1990, Eine konventionelle Handlung verstehen. In: Rechtstheorie
21, 441-458.
Miller, L.C./ Read, S.J., 1991, On the Coherence of Mental Models of Persons
and Relationships. In: Finchham, F./ Fletcher, G. (eds.), 1991, Cognition in
Close Relationships, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 69-99.
Millgram, Elijah/ Thagard, Paul, 1996, Deliberative Coherence. In: Synthese
108, 63-88.
Moravcsik, Julius M., 1979, Understanding. In: Dialectica 33, 1979, 201-216.
Nemirow, Laurence, 1995, Understanding Rules. In: The Journal of Philosophy,
92, 28-43.
Parret, Herman/ Bouveresse, Jacques (ed.), 1981, Meaning and Understanding,
Berlin and New York.
Passmore, John, 1962, Explanations in everyday life, in science, and in
history. In: History and Theory 2, 105-125.
Rosenberg, Jay F., 1981, On Understanding the Difficulty in Understanding
Understanding. In: Parret, Herman/ Bouveresse, Jacques (eds.), 1981, Meaning
and Understanding, Berlin and New York, 29-43.
Ryle, Gilbert, 1949, The Concept of Mind, London 1949.
Salmon, Wesley C., 1998, Causality and Explanation, New York and Oxford.
Schurz, Gerhard, 1988, Was ist wissenschaftliches Verstehen? Eine Theorie
verstehensbewirkender Erklrungsepisoden. In: idem (ed.), 1988, Erklären
und Verstehen in der Wissenschaft, München: Oldenbourg, 235-298.
Schurz, Gerhard (ed.), 1988, Erklären und Verstehen in der Wissenschaft,
München.
Schurz, Gerhard/ Lambert, Karel, 1994, Outline of a Theory of Scientific
Understanding. In: Synthese 101, 65-120.
Thagard, Paul, 1989, Explanatory Coherence. In: Behavioral and Brain Sciences
12, 435-467.
Thagard, Paul, 1992, Conceptual Revolutions, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press.
Thagard, Paul, 1998, Ethical Coherence. In: Philosophical Psychology 11.
Thagard, Paul/ Millgram, Elijah, 1995, Inference to the Best Plan: A Coherence
Theory of Decision. In: Leake, D./ Ram, A. (eds.), 1995, Goal-Driven Learning,
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 439-454.
Vendler, Zeno, 1967, Linguistics in Philosophy, Ithaca, N.Y. 1967.
Vendler, Zeno, 1976, A Note to the Paralogisms. In: Ryle, Gilbert (ed.),
1976, Contemporary Aspects of Philosophy, Stocksfield, London, Henley on Thames
and Boston, 111-121.
Vendler, Zeno, 1984, Understanding People. In: Shweder, Richard A./ LeVine,
Robert A. (eds.), 1984, Culture Theory, Cambridge, 200-213.
Vendler, Zeno, 1994, Understanding Misunderstanding. In: Jamieson, Dale (ed.),
1994, Language, Mind and Art. Essays in Appreciation and Analysis, in Honor of
Paul Ziff, Dordrecht, 9-21.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 1958, Philosophische Untersuchungen/ Philosophical
Investigations, Oxford.
von Wright, Georg Henrik, 1974, Explanation and Understanding, Ithaca, New
York: Cornell University Press.
von Wright, Georg Henrik/ Meggle, Georg, 1989, Das Verstehen von Handlungen.
In: Rechtstheorie 20, 3-34.
Ziff, Paul, 1972, Understanding Understanding, Ithaca and London.
Ziff, Paul, 1984, Coherence. In: Linguistics and Philosophy 7, 31-42.
In Deutsch nicht verfügbar
Top
|
Home
|
Sitemap
|
