Analytic Epistemology Research Articles

Salvation through Implicit Faith: A New Defence

Abstract The once-popular thesis that non-Christians who are inculpably ignorant of the gospel can be saved through ‘implicit faith’ in Christ has fallen on hard times. In this paper, we consider objections raised against this position by a range of Catholic critics, including Thomas Crean, Augustine DiNoia, Gavin D’Costa, and Stephen Bullivant. In our judgement, criticisms of ‘implicit faith’ often suffer from a lack of clarity about the nature of such faith, although admittedly this ambiguity was present even in original Scholastic uses of the term. However, in the past few decades, analytic philosophers have explored many forms of belief, which one might call ‘implicit’. Accordingly, we draw on both Scholastic and analytic epistemology to arrive at a more attractive characterisation of implicit faith. We argue that once implicit faith is understood in this way, recent objections to the claim that non-Christians can be saved soluble.

Faith and Hinge Epistemology in Calvin’s Institutes

Abstract In mainstream analytic epistemology, Reformed theology has made its presence prominently felt in Reformed epistemology, the view of religious belief according to which religious beliefs can be properly basic and warranted when formed by the proper functioning of the sensus divinitatis, an inborn capacity or faculty for belief in God that can be prompted to generate certain religious beliefs when presented with things (e.g., certain majestic aspects of creation). A major competitor to Reformed epistemology is Wittgensteinian quasi-fideism, a position drawn from the epistemology of Wittgenstein’s On Certainty, according to which some foundational religious commitments are not properly basic beliefs but some kind of apodictic, unshakeable certainties that form part of the structure of one’s rationality and worldview. I argue that the Reformed tradition has contained elements of quasi-fideism at least as far back as Calvin’s account of faith from the Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 3, chapter 2.

Aristotle's First Philosophy as Analytical Epistemology

Aristotle's First Philosophy as Analytical Epistemology

Cybernetic Epistemology

Mainstream analytic epistemology conceives knowledge as representation: as true justified (un-Gettiered) belief. Such representation is conceived as independent of practice, its justification to consist in experience, and experience as mere observation. Such notion of experience is too narrow to take the epistemic value of experimentation into account. But science is emphatically experimental. On the other hand, John Dewey defined experience as organism–environment interaction. Such interaction is bidirectional and hence experimental by nature. It involves feedback. Cybernetics studies feedback systems. Hence, cybernetic epistemology is a consequence of Dewey’s definition. Cybernetic epistemology maintains that knowledge is practice, that is, an (approximately and relatively) invariant pattern of potential organism–environment interaction, rather than something independent of practice. In this article, I will make a case for cybernetic epistemology. It seems to dispense with the representational notion of knowledge and to provide an original justification for process ontology.

Analytic Epistemology and Armchair Psychology

Critical comments on Guido Melchior’s book, Knowing and Checking: An Epistemological Investigation (2019). In the second part of his book, Melchior aims to employ his sensitivity account of the epistemic concept of checking to explain well-known puzzle cases about knowing. My comments focus on Melchior’s explanation of knowledge-closure puzzles, as exemplified by Dretske’s zebra case. I raise three critical points about the explanation Melchior proposes for puzzles of this type.

The Problems of Viewing Performance: Epistemology and Other Minds by Michael Y. Bennett

Reviewed by: The Problems of Viewing Performance: Epistemology and Other Minds by Michael Y. Bennett Brice Ezell The Problems of Viewing Performance: Epistemology and Other Minds. By Michael Y. Bennett. Routledge, 2021. Cloth: $160.00, eBook: $48.95. 150 pages. Michael Y. Bennett occupies a near-solitary place in what he rightly calls the "philosophical turn in theatre and performance studies in the new millennium" (3). This "turn" has to do with the philosophical tradition in which Bennett anchors his work: analytic philosophy. There are now numerous studies of other philosophical entanglements with drama and theatre that feature philosophers dating from the ancient tradition (Plato, in Martin Puchner's The Drama of Ideas) all the way up to twentieth-century thinkers like Hannah Arendt (in Minou Arjomand's Staged). But although analytic philosophy has been the dominant academic mode of philosophy in the United States and Great Britain for the bulk of the twentieth century and up to the present, it has received little engagement from the world of drama and theatre studies. In a 2018 special issue of Anglia on drama, theatre, and philosophy, Laura Cull Ó Maoilearca goes so far as to argue against the legitimacy of an analytic approach to theatre. A recent uptick in literary interest in the analytic tradition, particularly in the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein, has not, it seems, encouraged drama and theatre scholars to look in that direction. Except, that is, for Bennett. His latest monograph, The Problems of Viewing Performance: Epistemology and Other Minds, follows and builds upon his Analytic Philosophy and the World of the Play (2017). Where the latter offers a broad analytic approach to the events of a theatrical production, this new book applies a specific analytic subfield, epistemology, to a core theatrical "problem"—namely, the question of whether the experience of being in an audience is shared. As he does in World of the Play (where, for example, he argues that the events of a play occur in the past subjunctive rather than the present), Bennett advances some unorthodox positions. Chief among these is his claim that "viewing performance is not a shared experience," but is instead an "intersubjective" experience "often modified by other viewers" (3). To elucidate his position, Bennett brings together theatrical concerns with numerous philosophers and examples from analytic epistemology that will be familiar to philosophy undergraduates, such as Edmund Gettier's famous "Gettier cases." For many in theatre and performance studies without traditional philosophical training, however, this philosophy can be a useful new resource. The Problems of Viewing Performance initiates an intriguing conversation. [End Page 93] He is perhaps too quick to dismiss a good deal of scholarship on audience studies when he says that the "performer-audience model of theatrical production and reception is based on a largely unproblematized and simple conceptual structure of an audience at the theatre" (15); the aforementioned Staged is just one recent example of many monographs that theorize the nature of a theatrical audience. But Bennett wisely outlines the myriad ways that the questions raised by analytic epistemology bear upon our notions of audience, examined or unexamined. These questions include: "What is the nature of our own mind?" "What is the relationship between my mind and the minds of others?" The Problems of Viewing Performance utilizes a bipartite structure. These halves are neatly organized, as is the volume itself. Bennett writes clearly and precisely and is careful to define terms. Part I, spanning chapters 1–3, focuses on Bennett's analytic epistemological approach to the theatre, in which he troubles the commonsense notion that theatrical audiences have a "shared" experience. Part II, chapters 4-8, surveys a wide range of plays, including two medieval vernacular plays, Shakespeare's Hamlet, and some well-known works by contemporary playwrights such as Tony Kushner and Maria Irene Fornés. The topics explored in these stand-alone chapters frequently call back to The Problems of Viewing Performance's theoretical first half, yet at times the book drifts. The argument presented in chapter 5 about the medieval plays Le Jeu de Saint Nicolas and The Castle of Perseverance highlights the traditionally drawn boundaries between stage and audience, which naturally impact how audiences gather knowledge...

Linking the Humanities With Clinical Reasoning: Proposing an Integrative Conceptual Model for a Graduate Medical Education Humanities Curriculum.

Discussion surrounding the role of the humanities as an important analytic epistemology within medical education is generally less robust than literature supporting its value in building empathy and promoting personal reflection and wellness. As such, the humanities have not been considered to be as relevant when teaching medical reasoning or technical skills. Yet, might the humanities offer value in emboldening the analytic thinking of medical learners? This article proposes an integrative conceptual model that links the thought process defining medicine-clinical reasoning-with humanistic analysis in an effort to advance the argument that the humanities offer a complementary and innovative platform that can be used within traditional medical education. The article then discusses preliminary findings from a pilot curriculum based on this model, implemented during internal medicine morning report at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine. Preliminary qualitative analysis of transcripts from the pilot curriculum demonstrates that a thought process analogous to that of clinical reasoning can be identified within guided group analyses of humanities works. Participants simultaneously used thought processes that were analytic and intuitive. The emergence of ambiguity/intuition as a theme in the pilot curriculum suggests the humanities could be a powerful tool for exploring and embracing ambiguity in clinical practice. Through the development of an integrative conceptual model, this article helps to demonstrate more explicitly the theoretical link between the reasoning pathways of the humanities and clinical medicine. Though a refined curriculum and more rigorous analysis are needed before arguing for the incorporation of the humanities into traditional graduate medical education on a larger scale, the preliminary findings here support the feasibility and promise of a curriculum based on the proposed integrative conceptual model.

Machines and Human Epistemology

Introduction. The article analyzes the structure of the epistemology of knowledge of weak artificial intelligence in comparison with the structure of human knowledge. The article was written within the framework of one of the most demanded branch sections of philosophy – the philosophy of artificial intelligence. The novelty of the research is based on the idea of applying the analysis of knowledge developed within the framework of analytical epistemology to the field of artificial intelligence.Methodology and sources. The article is written in the framework of analytical tradition in philosophy. We use conceptual analysis to analyze the most crucial aspects of knowledge. This method assumes that in order to explain a complex phenomenon, it is necessary to analyze its components. This method formed the basis of an analytical discussion about knowledge in the second half of the 20th century. The article also uses comparative analysis.Results and discussion. People's knowledge is characterized by three essential characteristics – the presence of information-bearing mental states, their reliability, and factuality. We analyzed to what extent the information-carrying internal states of a weak AI correspond to these qualities. The authors concluded that internal states can be considered beliefs if they are weakly interpreted, they can have a high degree of reliability under certain conditions, and they can have factuality if we accept that a weak AI has beliefs.Conclusion. A weak interpretation of the concept of belief allows us to argue that neural networks are capable of having beliefs. A more rigorous interpretation of the concept of belief also includes the requirement to understand the meaning. However, we do not have at our disposal a satisfactory theory of understanding meaning. In this case, the condition of reliability is the only criterion of knowledge to which the functional states of machines can correspond in the case of certain tasks, in connection with which the problem of generality arises especially acutely.

Virtue Epistemology: Normativity, Conceptual Polarization and Some New Insights

The influence of Willard Quine’s radical naturalistic approach, ambiguity in estimation of methodological naturalism and its role for philosophy, along with the challenging Gettier problem, all led to a fundamental revision of normativity in analytic epistemology. Intellectual virtues used as the basis of epistemic process broaden the horizon of epistemological research, while allowing the incorporation of norms and values into its subject field. Still, the scope of intellectual virtues underlying the concept of normativity is seen quite differently by the researchers of this interdisciplinary area. The main disagreement between virtue reliabilists and virtue responsiblists leads to conceptualization of the two systems, where are the sources of the virtues, instruments and the epistemic process itself are presented alternatively from different perspectives. Reliabilists relate the source of the epistemic virtue to adequately functioning perceptive apparatus and memory. They prioritize the results over the epistemic process itself leaving the issue of the subject’s responsibility out. At the same time responsibilists rest the responsibility for the results, as well as for the epistemic process, on the subject. The pathway, which leads the latter to knowledge, is required to be clear and honest — starting from the subject’s motivation and the instruments he or she uses, finishing with the final results. This antithesis requires the development of viable alternatives. Here one can find two of them: sentimentalist virtue epistemology of M. Slote, personalism of H. Battaly. Put into a broader context, the issue of intellectual virtues applied for epistemic process could provide a number of insights related to general social and research practices (responsibility for intellectual work, testimony, motivation, etc.), their ethical and epistemic ground.

From Social Construction to Social Critique: An Interview with Sally Haslanger

AbstractSally Haslanger (b. 1955) is Ford Professor of Philosophy and Women's and Gender Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a leading contemporary feminist philosopher. She has worked on analytic metaphysics, epistemology, and ancient philosophy. Her areas of interest are social and political philosophy, feminist theory, and critical race theory. Her 2012 book, Resisting Reality: Social Construction and Social Critique, collects papers published over the course of twenty years that link work in contemporary metaphysics, epistemology, and philosophy of language with social and political issues concerning gender, race, and the family. It was awarded the 2014 Joseph B. Gittler Prize for “outstanding scholarly contribution in the field of the philosophy of one or more of the social sciences.” In this interview, done in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and the #BlackLivesMatter movement, we discuss her ideas on social practices, social structure, and structural explanation. We also delve into her debunking project of elucidating the notion of ideology in a way that links it with contemporary work in epistemology, philosophy of language, and philosophy of mind, and to do justice to the materiality of social practices and social structures.

Эпистемическая культура Японии: общие контуры в зеркале историко-философского подхода

Ability of knowledge and thinking operations, such as abstraction, comparison syllogisms and so on, are of course common to all peoples. Nevertheless, when referring to this or that specifi c cultural material, the problem of the existence of separate epistemic cultures arises. Contemporary research on epistemological diversity relies primarily on methods of analytic epistemology and focuses on identifying examples of ‘cross-linguistic divergence’ at the semantic level. The concepts of ‘know’ and ‘knowledge’ often become the object of research. However, there are suffi cient grounds for identifying and studying epistemic cultures also in terms of other parameters. This article is focused upon highlighting these parameters by referring to examples of the history of the Japanese spiritual tradition associated with Buddhist and Confucian teachings. In particular, the author examines the Buddhist doctrines of two truths and the identity of absolute being and the phenomenal world, as well as the neo-Confucian principle of the unity of knowledge and action from the point of view of their infl uence on the epistemological attitudes of Japanese culture. The undertaken analytic excursion allows, using the example of Japan, to show that each culture has its own set of assumptions underlying the cognitive strategy, certain preferences, more or less trust in relation to one or another form of acquiring knowledge, e.g., sensoryempirical, rational, intuitive forms, as well as ideas about the goals of cognition, differently perceived in diverse cultural and historical contexts.

Testimony in African epistemology revisited

This article addresses important epistemological issues raised by Barry Hallen and J. Olubi Sodipo’s pioneering philosophical fieldwork among Yoruba herbalists or masters of medicine (onisegun). More precisely, I shall primarily investigate, as well as object to, the unduly restrictive view they take on testimony in Yoruba epistemic practice. With this criticism as the starting point, but still based on the cases Hallen and Sodipo provide, I explore different ways in which an “oral culture” like Yoruba (as traditionally depicted) can rely on testimony as a source of justification without succumbing to the gullible and uncritical attitude towards tradition such societies have been charged with. To this purpose, I put to use relevant developments in analytic epistemology taking place after Hallen and Sodipo published their work.

The fundamental model of deep disagreements

AbstractWe call systematic disputes that are particularly hard to resolve deep disagreements. We can divide most theories of deep disagreements in analytic epistemology into two camps: the Wittgensteinian view and the fundamental epistemic principles view. This essay analyzes how both views deal with two of the most pressing issues a theory of deep disagreement must address: their source and their resolution. After concluding that the paradigmatic theory of each camp struggles on both fronts, the essay proceeds to show that, despite their differences, these theories share some core assumptions and think of deep disagreements similarly: as grounded in fundamental epistemic differences between the parties. This underlying conception of deep disagreements the author calls “the fundamental model.” The essay provides reasons to be wary of this conception, and hence, mainstream epistemologists’ treatment of the issue.

Contra intuições

This paper intends to offer a critical evaluation of the role played by intuitions in the mainstream methodology in traditional analytic epistemology. The criticism directed to what I call methodology of evaluation by intuitions shows that epistemologists often idealize the reliability of intuitions when assessing a theory against potential counterexamples, ignoring that the disposition to answer intuitively to a case of concept attribution is bounded to the familiar dimension in which the relevant conceptual competence emerges. Thus, the reliability of intuitions does not necessarily extend to far-fetched cases. Given that the assessment by our intuitions is not sufficient to decide for or against an epistemological theory, I offer a sketch for a pragmatic and naturalized conception of theoretical decision-making in epistemology.Key-words: Intuitions, Analytic epistemology, Conceptual abilities, Naturalism, Pragmatism.

Through Virtues to Knowledge

By all accounts, virtue epistemology is making a value turn in contemporary analytic epistemology. In this article, this twist is explicated through the transformation of the understanding of epistemic values and the value of the epistemic. In the first sense, we are talking about how the view has changed on what determines the epistemic value of such categories as truth, knowledge, understanding, etc. In the second sense, we are talking about the value of our epistemic concepts (the value of the epistemic): what is true belief, knowledge, etc. for? It is shown how the causal link between our beliefs and intellectual virtues allows us to explain the nature and value of knowledge as a central category of epistemology. The author reveals the difference between the main types of virtue epistemology through the prism of two different approaches to the justification of values: value internalism and value externalism. Value externalism assumes that a state/motive/action gains value from something outside of a person's consciousness. In contrast, value internalism holds that the conditions that determine value are internal to consciousness. For reliabilism, the value of cognitive success lies in its causal connection with the reliable competences of the subject, for responsibilism – with virtuous motives of cognitive activity. Common to reliabilism and responsibilism is that they shift the focus from the value of an effect (truth) to its relationship with the value of a cause – an ability or excellent trait of intellectual character. The main approaches to substantiating the fundamental value of knowledge in virtue epistemology are analyzed. If for reliabilism the highest epistemic value is truth as cognitive achievement, then for responsibilism the value of epistemic categories is primarily in their moral significance – the achievement of a good life and happiness (eudaimonia). In conclusion, the problematic aspects of virtue epistemology are formulated and promising directions for its further development are shown.

Multi-Factor Causal Disjunctivism: a Nyāya-Informed Account of Perceptual Disjunctivism

Perceptual disjunctivism is a controversial thesis about perception. One familiar characterization of the thesis maintains that there is no common epistemic kind that is present in both veridical and non-veridical cases of perception. For example, the good case, in which one sees a yellow lemon, and the bad case, in which one hallucinates a yellow lemon, share a specific first-person phenomenology, being indistinguishable from the first-person point of view; however, seeing a yellow lemon and hallucinating a yellow lemon do not, according to the disjunctivist, share a common epistemic kind. There are two types of disjunctivism: epistemological vs. metaphysical. John McDowell (1996, 2008, Philosophical Explorations, 13(3), 243–255, 2011, Philosophical Explorations, 16(3), 259–279, 2013) has articulated, refined, and defended one kind of disjunctivism. Tyler Burge (Philosophical Topics, 33(1), 1–78, 2005, Philosophical Explorations, 13(3), 43–80, 2011) has objected to many forms of disjunctivism, arguing that they are all inconsistent with the proximality principle (PP) in the vision sciences. PP requires an ability-general kind in common between relevantly similar perceptual states, such as seeing a yellow lemon and hallucinating a yellow lemon, which disjunctivism denies. Against the background of this debate some analytic epistemologists, such as Michael Martin (Philosophical Studies, 120, 37–89, 2004), Alan Millar (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 73(1), 176–198, 2007), Berit Brogaard (Philosophical Issues 21-The Epistemology of Perception, 21(1), 46–73, 2011), Duncan Pritchard (2012), and Heather Logue (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 86(1), 105–133, 2013) remain attracted to some version of disjunctivism. Brogaard and Pritchard each have gone on to articulate and defend a version. Pritchard’s (2012), for example, defends epistemological disjunctivism. Martin, Millar, and Logue, by contrast, have defended the idea that the disjunctivist is right about something, but perhaps not wholly correct about the nature of perception. In what follows, I articulate and defend the view that an interesting kind of disjunctivism is to be found through a reading of the Nyāya School of classical Indian philosophy. I articulate a version of perceptual disjunctivism informed by Nyāya perceptual theory that is not derivable from any single Nyāya philosopher. The view I offer is inspired by work on disjunctivism both in Anglo-analytic philosophy and in Nyāya scholarship, such as by Dasti and Phillips (Philosophy East & West, 60(4), 535–540, 2010), Ganeri (Philosophy East & West, 60(4), 541–550, 2010), Dasti (Philosophy East & West, 62(1), 1–15, 2012), Phillips (2012), Vaidya (Philosophy East and West, 63(4), 562–585, 2013), and Schiller (History of Philosophy Quarterly, 36(1), 1–18, 2019). Importantly, the causal account I offer is distinct from Grice’s (Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 121, 121–152, 1961) single-factor causal theory of perception by crucially involving a multi-factor causal theory of perception. My work on Nyāya perceptual theory derives primarily from Jaysankar Shaw’s (2016a, b, c) account of Nyāya on the sources of knowledge, which is distinct from Stephen Phillips’ well-known (2012) account of Nyāya epistemology. Shaw’s theory has been developed and refined through textual analysis and dialectical engagement with the twentieth century Nyāya Pundit Philosopher, Viśvabandhu Tarkatīrtha. Like other modern Nyāya scholars, such as B. K. Matilal (1992), A. Chakrabarti (Philosophy East and West, 50(1), 1–8, 2010), M. Chadha (2015), J. Ganeri (2011), and S. Phillips (Philosophy East and West, 51(1), 104–113, 2001, 2012), J. Shaw’s account shows how Nyāya epistemology is a living and continuing form of Indian philosophy. My goal here is twofold. On the one hand, I articulate multi-factor causal disjunctivism and show how it can be applied to the McDowell-Burge debate over the viability of disjunctivism and naive realism. On the other hand, I aim to start a cross-cultural epistemological conversation with those that have contributed to the Anglo-analytic debate in anthologies, such as Haddock and Macpherson (2008), Byrne and Logue (2009), and introductions, such as Soteriou (2016). The hope is that a cross-cultural epistemological investigation into disjunctivism will lead to better epistemic theorizing about the nature of perception.

A case for integrative epistemology

Western analytic epistemology is undergoing an upheaval: the importance of social justice concerns is becoming increasingly recognized. Many of us want epistemology to reflect our lived experiences, and to do real work for us on issues that matter. Motivated by these concerns, researchers are increasingly focusing on ameliorating our epistemic concepts: finding ones that contribute to social justice. At the same time, however, many epistemologists claim that their project is purely metaphysical and thus value-neutral: epistemology is just about the truth, the facts! Ethics and politics thus have no place in epistemology proper. I will argue that, despite appearances to the contrary, these ameliorative and objectivist projects are not in conflict. Indeed, because the same concepts are our tools for both theoretical and practical reasoning, properly carrying out either project must be done in an integrated way with the other. I’ll use the example of medical research to show how social justice concerns can deeply influence scientific practice in ways that contribute to, rather than threaten, its claims to objectivity. I then develop an integrative epistemology on analogy with medical research to resolve both longstanding philosophical disputes and support our understanding and healing of public discourse.

Epistemologia feminista enquanto uma ramificação da epistemologia social: uma análise a partir de Donna Haraway e Sandra Harding

Este trabalho tem como objetivo apresentar uma perspectiva feminista da epistemologia social. A partir desta, criticar a ideia de universalização da verdade feita através do método tradicional da epistemologia analítica e das ciências, frequentemente ditas como neutras ou não corporificadas. Proponho demonstrar que o pesquisador é um corpo enquanto localização, isto é, está situado socialmente e historicamente, evidenciando suas consequência dentro da pesquisa científica. Para tanto, terei como principal escopo argumentativo as contribuições de Donna Haraway e Sandra Harding a fim de articular a ideia de uma objetividade do conhecimento através de saberes que são localizados. Por fim, apontar essa perspectiva enquanto uma das ramificações essenciais para a epistemologia social.

An Appraisal of Alvin Goldman’s Social Epistemology

This work is aimed at giving an insight into the issues raised by Goldman in his argument that social epistemology is ‘real epistemology’. Goldman wants to convince the mainstream epistemologists and the philosophical world in general that social epistemology is real epistemology by distinguishing between three forms of social epistemology: revisionist, preservationist, and expansionist. These three forms of social epistemology construed and proposed by Goldman differ in how they relate to the basic assumptions of traditional/classical epistemology. While acknowledging the various authors for their divergent views and contributions to social epistemic discourse, this work holds that though Goldman, more than any other social epistemologist, raised a fresh perspective in social epistemology, yet, there is a missing link in his submission. Goldman’s preservationist social epistemology, which he argued is “real epistemology”, fails to give at least, a spotlight on what this work calls historical social epistemology. This does not in any way downplay Goldman’s giant stride in awakening epistemologists from their slumber which led some scholars to include issues like analytic social epistemology, diagnostic social epistemology, naturalistic social epistemology, and political social epistemology in the epistemic lexicon; and by so doing, expanding the frontiers of the epistemic domain of philosophical enterprise. It is the position of this research that Goldman’s social epistemology elicited a renewed interest in epistemologists and scholars alike in the social dimension of knowledge. This work employs historical, conceptual, contextual, and textual methods of analyses.

Social Understanding and the Problem of “Other Mind”

The article discusses the main developments in the theory of social understanding. This new interdisciplinary area of research emerged at the end of the 20th century as a synthesis of a number of directions – analytical epistemology, philosophy of mind, cognitive psychology, neuroscience. Most philosophers and scientists believe that the core of social understanding is the ability to understand the mental states of other people. Studies of this ability have been called ≪theory of mind≫. This traditional problem of epistemology has now ceased to be the subject of “armchair philosophy” and turned into a field in which philosophy began to interact with the empirical cognitive sciences. Discussions about cognitive mechanisms that provide social understanding are dominated by two main approaches: theory-theory and simulation theory, as well as various options for their integration. The article also discusses an alternative interactive approach to social understanding research. Its supporters believe that people in real interactions with each other rarely use theorizing or mental simulation, but use direct social perception and various forms of embodied social practice.