Paul Coates, review of Philosophy and Memory Traces (BJHP 8, 2000, 559-561) (original) (raw)
Related papers
William Clower, review of *Philosophy and Memory Traces*, J Hist Neuroscis 2000
Journal of the History of the Neurosciences 9 (3), 2000, 324-327, 2000
Compelling ... relies on an intimate understanding of the current philosophy of science and history of memory and philosophy of mind. This is clearly a very important work [which] successfully ties in historical, scientific, philosophic, and social elements in the transition of memory theories.
Memory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2010
Winter 2012 Edition 3 memory and the non-conscious ways in which we are influenced by the past does not drive a useful wedge between philosophy and the sciences. On the one hand, scientific psychology is not, either in principle or in practice, restricted to the study of implicit learning and the varieties of conditioning: indeed, the study of our rich, socially-embedded capacities to remember our personal experiences is at the heart of much current research. On the other hand, philosophers too want to understand the operations of habit memory, skill memory, and involuntary memory, and their implications for expanded notions of agency and identity.
Book review symposium: The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Memory
Memory Studies, 2019
As a psychologist, when I think about memory, I think about questions such as the following: How do people-and other species-remember the past? What neurological or cognitive mechanisms are involved? What are its properties? Is there one form of memory or many different forms of memory? If more than one, how does one characterize them? To some extent, the philosophy of memory tackles at least some of the same issues, but it appears on the surface to involve much more. As a cursory examination of the Table of Contents of The Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Memory indicates, there are concerns about the metaphysics and epistemology of memory and the morality of memory. When are you, for instance, morally obligated to remember? But then, when should you feel the obligation to forget? Questions such as these remain largely either unexplored or unrecognized by psychologists and neuroscientists, and one could reasonably argue, rightly so. One could equally argue, however, that psychologists have a great deal to learn about memory from philosophers. This volume is a good place to start. The editors-Sven Bernecker and Kourken Michaelian-have masterfully found articulate and authoritative contributors who address these topics and many more. I particularly welcomed the section on the history of the philosophy of memory. There are separate chapters on Plato (Chapter 30), Aristotle (Chapter 31), Augustine (Chapter 35), Indian Buddhist philosophy (Chapter 33), Hume (Chapter 39), Hegel (Chapter 40), Bergson (Chapter 42), Halbwachs (Chapter 44), and Ricoeur (Chapter 48), to name just of a handful of the 18 separate historical chapters. These will serve as a ready guide for anyone who wants to understand the contributions of different scholars to the study of memory. As I read through the altogether 48 chapters in this volume, I found myself thinking back to my graduate school days. After a year or two studying the psychology and neuroscience of memory, I decided that I needed to know something about the philosophy of memory. At the time, at Cornell, the formidable Wittgensteinian philosopher Norman Malcolm was teaching a course on memory. I distinctly remember being hopelessly confused from the start. At least in the beginning of the course, Malcolm appeared to treat a memory as a memory only if it captured "truthfully" the past. As Bernecker states in his entry on "Memory and Truth" (Chapter 4), "'To remember' is factive in the sense that an utterance of 'S remembers that p' (where 'S' stands for a subject and 'p' stands for a proposition) is true only if p is the case. If not-p, then S may think that she remembers that p, but she doesn't actually remember that p" (p. 52). A large number of chapters in this volume either embrace this notion, or feel that one must take it seriously enough to tackle it at length. To return to Bernecker again, many philosophers find the statement "I remember such-and-such, but suchand-such never happened," if not literally contradictory, paradoxical. For them, it is "not really a 883205M SS0010.1177/1750698019883205Memory Studies book-review2019 Book review symposium
Memory. A philosophical study (2010), by Sven Bernecker. OUP
Grazer Philosophische Studien - International Journal for Analytic Philosophy, 2012
This article presents some of my critics to the causal theory of memory, theory that conceives memory as the result of a linear causal link between a past and a present representation via an unchangeable memory, as well as some of my critics to the specific version of the causal theory developed by Bernecker.
Social Studies of Science, 2009
pbk), 0 26202 589 2 (hbk) £11.95/$17.95/13.99 (pbk), £22.95/$90.00/34.95 (hbk). ISBN 0 26252 489 9 the Sciences (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 261 pp.,
Foreword - Philosophies of memory
Voluntas: Revista Internacional de Filosofia, 2019
The philosophy of memory today From time immemorial, philosophers have been concerned with issues related to memory. However, the philosophy of memory understood as a particular field is a very new enterprise. This new field of study is the result of the growth of research on memory, which can be measured by a large number of publications in specialized scientific journals, conferences, seminars, as well as societies and research centers. It is safe to say that The philosophy of memory is now well on its way to taking form as a distinct, coherent area of research, with a recognized set of problematics and theories. […] Philosophers of memory […] increasingly think of themselves as philosophers of memory, and the area is in the process of developing its own infrastructure, as books, special issues, conferences, and workshops on all aspects of the philosophy of memory become regular occurrences 1 .
Integrating the philosophy and psychology of memory: two case studies
Cartographies of the Mind: philosophy and psychology in intersection, 2007
Memory is studied across a bewildering range of disciplines and subdisciplines in the neural, cognitive, and social sciences, and the term covers a wide range of related phenomena. In an integrative spirit, this chapter examines two case studies in memory research in which empirically-informed philosophy and philosophically-informed sciences of the mind can be mutually informative, such that the interaction between psychology and philosophy can open up new research problems—and set new challenges—for our understanding of certain aspects of memory. In each case, there is already enough interdisciplinary interaction on specific issues to give some confidence in the potential productivity of mutual exchange: but in each case, residual gulfs in research style and background assumptions remain to be addressed. The two areas are the developmental psychology of autobiographical memory, and the study of shared memories and social memory phenomena.