John Raymund Alonzo

This paper aims to analyze Andy Clark and David Chalmers' “The Extended Mind.” Clark and Chalmers assert that the human mind is not limited to the traditional boundaries of the brain and skull. The human mind, not consciousness, reaches out to the physical world. Their theory is called active externalism: the environment plays a huge role in human cognition. With cognitive science developing along with the advancement of Artificial Intelligence (AI), this theory becomes more relevant, particularly with its ethical implications. While reliability, constancy, and availability are key factors in coupling a biological organism with an external resource, the current trends in philosophy, the sciences, AI, etc., have yet to determine parameters for ethical considerations. To provide an ethical perspective and a balanced understanding of the extended mind, this paper unpacks Thomas Fuchs’ “Understanding Sophia? On Human Interaction with Artificial Agents.” Fuchs emphasizes human subjectivity, which, with confusion on the ground of categorical difference, is mistaken for robot simulation. His conclusion demands a renewed understanding of human persons as social beings. He argues for the importance of a holistic, embodied view of the human person in response to increasing reliance on AI.

In this article, I argue that, although Jacques Derrida is “unwelcomed” to “most” philosophical traditions, his “différance” may have some similarities with Ludwig Wittgenstein’s “language-games.” A number of scholars have looked into the connection between Wittgenstein and Derrida in various perspectives. This paper aims to contribute to this body of work by analyzing Wittgenstein’s “languagegames” in his Philosophical Investigations in relation to Derrida’s “différance” in his Margins of Philosophy. Assessing some similarities between these philosophers requires a charitable consideration of the differences as foundation for a convergence between these philosophers’ viewpoints, specifically their 1) views on “differences” in meaning, 2) the “text” and the “context” as the field of analyzing and/or deconstructing language, and 3) the refusal to commit their philosophical work as methods, concepts, and/or theories. Eventually, this attempt to establish a convergence between Wittgenstein and Derrida can stand as a bridge or, in the Wittgensteinian word, a “language-game” towards a more comprehensive understanding not only of philosophy and language, but of life itself. My aim is to show that such convergence, though is not so much focused on the “deconstructive-ness” of the Investigations, can introduce a new way of analyzing the “text” without separating it from the “context.”