Actions

Cognitive Interests: Difference between revisions

An Avatar.Global Resource

No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 19: Line 19:
Emancipatory interests = liberation from "historically contingent restraints through self-reflection. <ref>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</ref>  
Emancipatory interests = liberation from "historically contingent restraints through self-reflection. <ref>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</ref>  


 
{{endstuff}}


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

Revision as of 16:51, 21 April 2020

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

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

Treat the SpiritWiki as an open-access online monograph or structured textbook. You may freely use information in the SpiritWiki; however, attribution, citation, and/or direct linking are ethically required.

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