Difference between revisions of "Cognitive Interests"

From The SpiritWiki
m (Text replacement - "\[\[(.*)\]\] > {{#ask:\[\[Is a related term::(.*)\]\]}}" to "'''Endogenous to the LP''' $1 > {{#ask:Is a _related_ LP term::$1}} '''Exogenous to the LP''' $1 > {{#ask:Is a related term::$1}}")
(Text replacement - "]]" to " [[")
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
</blockquote>
</blockquote>


==Related Terms==
==Related LP Terms==  


'''Endogenous to the LP'''
[[Cognitive Interests]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related LP term::Cognitive Interests]]}}


[[Cognitive Interests]] > {{#ask:[[Is a _related_ LP term::Cognitive Interests]]}}
==Non-LP Related Terms==
 
'''Exogenous to the LP'''


[[Cognitive Interests]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Cognitive Interests]]}}
[[Cognitive Interests]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Cognitive Interests]]}}
Line 23: Line 21:
{{endstuff}}
{{endstuff}}


[[category:terms]][[Is a syncretic term::Seven Essential Needs| ]][[Is a related term::Habermas| ]]
[[category:terms]]
[[Is a syncretic term::Seven Essential Needs| ]]
[[Is a related term::Habermas| ]]

Latest revision as of 06:45, 19 December 2022

According to Habermas, Cognitive Interests are the "deep structure rules" which inform thought and action, and which constitute the world of experience.[1]

Cognitive interests include our technical, practical, and emancipatory interests.

Related LP Terms

Cognitive Interests >

Non-LP Related Terms

Cognitive Interests >

Notes

Technical interests = aspects of knowledge and action concerned with manipulating the environment.

Practical interests = aspects of knowledge and action concerned with extending understanding and consensus.

Emancipatory interests = liberation from "historically contingent restraints through self-reflection. [2]

Footnotes

  1. Scott, John P. “Critical Social Theory: An Introduction and Critique.” The British Journal of Sociology 29, no. 1 (1978): 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/589216. p. 2
  2. Scott, John P. “Critical Social Theory: An Introduction and Critique.” The British Journal of Sociology 29, no. 1 (1978): 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/589216. p. 2