Skip navigation
November 18, 2012

1990: Being-in-the-World and 1991: The Embodied Mind

Posted by: Katie Heasley

For day 24 of our series, we’ve paired Being-in-the-World with The Embodied Mind.

Being-in-the-World: A Commentary on Heidegger's Being in Time, Division I by Hubert L. Dreyfus:

Mark Okrent reviewed Being-in-the-World in The Philosophical Review (Vol 102, No. 2, April 1993):

“Hubert Dreyfus’s Being-in-the-World will establish itself as the best commentary we have on Heideggers’s Being and Time, Division I…

The heart of Dreyfus’s book is the contention that Being and Time carries out two simultaneous projects. First, Dreyfus claims that Heidegger offers a powerful critique of a series of assumptions concerning what it is to be a person. Second, Dreyfus holds that Heidegger presents a compelling new interpretation of human being.

 

 

The Embodied Mind: Cognitive Science and Human Experience by Francisco J. Varela, Eleanor Rosch, and Evan Thompson:

Here’s an excerpt from Daniel C. Dennett’s review of The Embodied Mind in The American Journal of Psychology (Vol. 106, No. 1, Spring 1993):

“Francisco Varela, an immunologist-turned-neuroscientist, Evan Thompson, a philosopher, and Eleanor Rosch, a psychologist, are radical critics of cognitive science, calling for what they consider to be more of a revolution than a set of reforms, and they have pooled their skills to execute what is surely the best informed, best balanced radical critique to date. Just how radical? Their heroes are the Buddha and the French phenomenologist, Maurice Merleau-Ponty. They argue that Buddhist meditative traditions offer not just a wealth of important phenomena of human consciousness, but otherwise unobtainable insights into the relations of embodiment that permit us to understand how the inner and the outer, the first-person point of view and the objective point of view of science, can coexist.”

Our 50 influential journal articles are listed here. The articles are in chronological order and will be freely available through the end of 2012.

For information about the MIT Press’ history, check out our 50th anniversary page.

Responses to the blog post