Welcome to our book review site go-pdf.online!
You may have to Search all our reviewed books and magazines, click the sign up button below to create a free account.
Mind, Self & Society
This foundational text of social psychology presents the most complete summation of Mead’s theory of symbolic interactionism. George Herbert Mead is widely recognized as one of the most brilliantly original American pragmatists. Although he had a profound influence on the development of social philosophy, he published no books in his lifetime. This makes the lectures collected in Mind, Self, and Society all the more remarkable, as they offer a rare synthesis of his ideas. This collection gets to the heart of Mead’s meditations on social psychology and social philosophy. With wry humor and shrewd reasoning, Mad teases out the genesis of the self and the nature of the mind.Included in this edition are an insightful foreword from leading Mead scholar Hans Joas, a revealing set of textual notes by Dan Huebner that detail the text’s origins, and a comprehensive bibliography of Mead’s other published writings.
Mind, Self, and Society
Written from the standpoint of the social behaviorist, this treatise contains the heart of Mead's position on social psychology. The analysis of language is of major interest, as it supplied for the first time an adequate treatment of the language mechanism in relation to scientific and philosophical issues. "If philosophical eminence be measured by the extent to which a man's writings anticipate the focal problems of a later day and contain a point of view which suggests persuasive solutions to many of them, then George Herbert Mead has justly earned the high praise bestowed upon him by Dewey and Whitehead as a 'seminal mind of the very first order.'"—Sidney Hook, The Nation
Creativity in George Herbert Mead
The main contributor to this volume is David Louis Miller of the University of Texas at Austin. Both a student of Mead's and an editor and defender of his thought, Miller attempts in his essay and subsequent responses to demonstrate both the overall coherence of Mead's philosophy and the extent to which that philosophy makes (in a social context) room for the concept of individual creativity. Miller thus corrects many false or otherwise superficial interpretations of Mead's social psychology, and of, by implication, contemporary symbolic interactionism. Miller's interpretation of Mead is criticized and amplified by several commentators, including Charles W. Morris, a friend and colleague of Mead's at the University of Chicago. A general introduction and biography are provided by the editor. Co-published with the Center for the Philosophy of Creativity.
Sammlung
None
Mind, Self, and Society
Written from the standpoint of the social behaviorist, this treatise contains the heart of Mead's position on social psychology. The analysis of language is of major interest, as it supplied for the first time an adequate treatment of the language mechanism in relation to scientific and philosophical issues. "If philosophical eminence be measured by the extent to which a man's writings anticipate the focal problems of a later day and contain a point of view which suggests persuasive solutions to many of them, then George Herbert Mead has justly earned the high praise bestowed upon him by Dewey and Whitehead as a 'seminal mind of the very first order.'"—Sidney Hook, The Nation
On Some Consequences of Charles W. Morris's Reinterpretation of the Philosophy of George Herbert Mead
...Morris's interpretation is a reinterpretation of what Mead actually thought, and this reinterpretation has invited a number of criticisms. First, Mead is said to be hostile to metaphysical inquiry... Second, it is often alleged that Mead's methodology is incapable of providing a firm basis for theory and research... Finally, it is said that Mead overemphasizes the power of individuals to create personal realities, and it downplays, ignores, or makes light of social structural and macro-sociological issues... The thesis of this paper is that the Morris reinterpretation is incorrect and these three criticisms are unjustified...
