The Philosophy of the Present¶
Mead, G. H. (1932). The Philosophy of the Present.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Futures Literacy
- Echoing Mead's (1932) Philosophy of the Present, futures literacy embodies a deep principle about the relationship between anticipation and action: all purposive action rests on some image of the future it is working toward or against; the quality of action depends on the quality of the anticipatory work underlying it; this anticipatory work can be done unreflectively (producing narrow, brittle, often-unconscious future-use) or reflectively (producing wider, more-adaptive, more-consciously-chosen future-use); the capability for reflective anticipatory use is developable through structured practice.
This sourcePragmatist account of how purposive action is constituted by its forward-oriented relation to imagined futures; supports the Abstract-Reasoning claim that all purposive action rests on an image of the future it works toward.
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Mead has conduct shaped by a consciousness reaching into the future, but not the quality-of-anticipation, unreflective/reflective or trainable-capability claims.
“The conduct of the con- scious organism is determined both by a physiological sys- tem from behind and also by a consciousness which reaches into the future.”
- Echoing Mead's (1932) Philosophy of the Present, futures literacy embodies a deep principle about the relationship between anticipation and action: all purposive action rests on some image of the future it is working toward or against; the quality of action depends on the quality of the anticipatory work underlying it; this anticipatory work can be done unreflectively (producing narrow, brittle, often-unconscious future-use) or reflectively (producing wider, more-adaptive, more-consciously-chosen future-use); the capability for reflective anticipatory use is developable through structured practice.
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:b8c35d8fe5b0 · see in the full table