Talk:Cognitive closure (philosophy)

Misleading

This article is incredibly misleading. Cognitive closure is an issue relating to the cognitive balance theories of Heider and Festinger's cognitive dissonance. The article here is complete bluffing. I'm only a first year psychology student myself, so I don't feel qualified to edit this article, but I'd like to suggest that the article be removed if it isn't rewritten so as not to mislead people.

The term "cognitive closure" may have several meanings, but it has been used in philosophy exactly as the article says. Colin McGinn is one such philosopher who argues that the human mind is cognitively closed to explaining consciousness. Whoever you are, please consider the fact that terms may used in multiple ways before ignorantly calling for the deletion of an article. I agree that a disambiguation page and other revisions may be needed, but cognitive closure in philosophy is just as important a concept as cognitive closure in psychology. Both deserve a page. Postmodern Beatnik 17:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Posted to WikiProject_Philosophy

Cognitive closure x 2 !

Please could someone have a look at Cognitive closure.

This is a disambiguation page for Cognitive closure (psychology) and Cognitive closure (philosophy). The former is a one-line quote/definition, while the latter is just one paragraph long !

Thanks. thisisace (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason for multiple pages is discussed directly above. Postmodern Beatnik (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Kant section poorly written and deeply misleading

The Kant section is poorly written and there are some crucial mistakes made in what is written:

First off, the post claims that things in themselves are unthinkable. This is wrong. They are unknowable. The critical difference lies in the fact that, because we can think things in themselves, we make certain kinds of mistakes when trying to derive knowledge a priori about certain specific domains (psychology, cosmology, theology).

Secondly, even if Kant does think that things in themselves are unknowable, I am not sure this makes consciousness cognitively closed to finite rational beings. Kant's anthropology and understanding of biology, though still pre-Darwinian has at least some starting points around concepts of epigenesis and organismic interaction for how one would formulate a program for naturalizing great deals of what contemporary naturalists want to explain.

I think the Kant section should just be struck from the article since it doesn't have anything to bear on current debates on consciousness and naturalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SebastianO1989 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)