David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ecological Psychology 9 (1):97-112 (1997)
I argue that the most promising approach to understanding J.J. Gibson's "affordances" takes affordances themselves as ontological primitives, instead of treating them as dispositional properties of more primitive things, events, surfaces, or substances. These latter are best treated as coalescences of affordances present in the environment (or "coalescences of use-potential," as in Sanders (1994) and Hilditch (1995)). On this view, even the ecological approach's stress on the complementary organism/environment pair is seen as expressing a particular affordance relation between the world and the analyst. That the world is parsed in any way among events and objects, perceivers and worlds, etc., reflects equally features of certain real or possible perspectives on the world and features of the world itself. In section 1, I begin by contending that, contrary to the apparent expectations of some in the field, the bare existence of affordances is surely quite uncontroversial. In section 2, I argue that the most reasonable approach to foundational ontology is a relativistic one. In section 3, I address the claim that affordances must be ontologically complemented by effectivities for the sake of completeness, and I shall argue against that claim on grounds that I take to reflect some of Gibson's most important insights. This work will help to clarify the way affordances are to be used in the fourth and final section, where I argue that ontological work, even within special sciences, should not be merely "regional," and that the most attractive general approach to ontological questions is one that is based on affordances, rather than upon things, events, surfaces, and the like.
|Keywords||affordances ontology Gibson, James J.|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|External links||This entry has no external links. Add one.|
|Through your library||Configure|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Anthony Chemero & M. T. Turvey (2007). Complexity, Hypersets, and the Ecological Perspective on Perception-Action. Biological Theory 2 (1):23-36.
Laurence Kaufmann & Fabrice Clément (forthcoming). Wired for Society: Cognizing Pathways to Society and Culture. Topoi:1-17.
Similar books and articles
Alan Costall (2012). Canonical Affordances in Context. Avant 3 (2):85-93.
Harry Heft (1989). Affordances and the Body: An Intentional Analysis of Gibson's Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 19 (1):1–30.
Andrea Scarantino (2003). Affordances Explained. Philosophy of Science 70 (5):949-961.
Erik Rietveld, Sanneke De Haan & Damiaan Denys (2013). Social Affordances in Context: What is It That We Are Bodily Responsive To? Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (4):436-436.
Annemiek D. Barsingerhorn, Frank T. J. M. Zaal, Joanne Smith & Gert-Jan Pepping (2012). On Possibilities for Action: The Past, Present and Future of Affordance Research. Avant 3 (2):54-69.
Damiano Menin & Andrea Schiavio (2012). Rethinking Musical Affordances. Avant 3 (2):202-215.
John T. Sanders (1993). Merleau-Ponty, Gibson and the Materiality of Meaning. Man and World 26 (3):287-302.
Tony Chemero (2001). What We Perceive When We Perceive Affordances: Commentary on Michaels (2000), Information, Perception and Action. Ecological Psychology 13 (2):111-116.
John T. Sanders (1994). Merleau-Ponty on Meaning, Materiality, and Structure. Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 25 (1):96-100.
John T. Sanders (1999). Affordances: An Ecological Approach to First Philosophy. In Gail Weiss & Honi Fern Haber (eds.), Perspectives on Embodiment: The Intersections of Nature and Culture. Routledge. 121--42.
Added to index2012-10-13
Total downloads126 ( #5,680 of 1,088,398 )
Recent downloads (6 months)48 ( #1,026 of 1,088,398 )
How can I increase my downloads?