Cognitive Interests: Difference between revisions
An Avatar.Global Resource
No edit summary |
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}}" |
||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
==Related Terms== | ==Related Terms== | ||
[[Cognitive Interests]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term:: | '''Endogenous to the LP''' | ||
[[Cognitive Interests]] > {{#ask:[[Is a _related_ LP term::Cognitive Interests]]}} | |||
'''Exogenous to the LP''' | |||
[[Cognitive Interests]] > {{#ask:[[Is a related term::Cognitive Interests]]}} | |||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
Revision as of 01:53, 18 December 2022
Cognitive Interests
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 Terms
Endogenous to the LP
Exogenous to the LP
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]
Citation and Legal
The SpiritWiki is a freely available, open-access Knowledge System devoted to health, healing, and reconnection. You may freely use information in the SpiritWiki; citation and attribution are welcomed, but not required. You can help this knowledge system grow by joining its Patreon.
The SpiritWiki is marked CC0 1.0 Universal and in the public domain, free for everyone on the planet to use. Please support its growth.
Footnotes
- ↑ 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
- ↑ 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