A Qualitative Study on the relationship between Aesthetic Experience and Material Culture from the Ancient World to Homo Aestheticus

Öz

Within classical attitudes, aesthetic experience can be defined in its simplest form as a phenomenon stemming from the sensations experienced by the subject due to interactions with the environment and its material elements. Evolutionary aesthetics argues that aesthetic sensitivity is crucial for human survival and establishing relationships with the environment. The earliest thoughts on aesthetic experience, which arose almost simultaneously with the advent of modern humans on earth, laid the groundwork for forming primordial religions at a social level. To cope with and adapt to their surroundings, humans enhanced their aesthetic experience by utilising tools, processing materials, decorating their bodies, and building nests. This situation seized the opportunity to create material culture, the primary output of their evolution. The phenomenological approach, which emerged in philosophy from the last quarter of the 19th century onwards, has taken on different dimensions and influenced numerous areas outside philosophy. Phenomenology, focusing on the individual's experience, has placed particular emphasis on the role of the body in generating material culture and aesthetic experience, contributing to the formation and shaping of aesthetic experiences. In the first half of the 20th century, the concepts of cognition and experience began to be explored concerning the material environment. Since the 1970s, ‘postcognitivist’ approaches have emerged that consider the effects of the body and environment on the formation of human cognitive processes. Based on these approaches, the influences of the body and social structures on human cognitive processes have begun to be examined through the lens of aesthetic experience and elements of material culture. This article represents the first Turkish study addressing the theme of evolutionary aesthetics and material culture. It begins with a discussion on the origin of aesthetic sensitivity. It concludes with the ‘Actor-network theory' which explores the concepts of experience and material culture about cognition and sociality. The discussion of the study says humans enhance their cognitive capacity and flexibility by constructing products of material culture through aesthetic sensitivity.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Aesthetic Sensitivity
• Material Culture
• Cognition
• Actor–network theory
• Homo Aestheticus

Antik Dünya’dan Homo Aestheticus’a (Estetik İnsan) Estetik Deneyim ve Maddi Kültür İlişkisine Dair Nitel Bir Çalışma

Öz

Klasik yaklaşımlar içerisinde, en basit haliyle, estetik deneyim, öznenin çevre ve çevredeki maddi unsurlar ile etkileşimi sonucu yaşadığı duyumsamadan türemiş bir olgu olarak tanımlanabilir. Evrimsel estetik, insanın hayatta kalma ve çevresi ile ilişki kurmasında estetik duyarlığının önemli bir faktör olduğunu savlamaktadır. Modern insanın yeryüzündeki serüveniyle neredeyse eş zamanlı başlayan estetik deneyim üzerine yapılan ilk düşünce üretimleri, toplumsal düzlemde ilkel dinlerin oluşumuna zemin sağlamıştır. Çevre ile baş etme ve uyum sağlama adına, alet kullanımı, malzemeyi işleme, beden süslemesi ve yuva yapma edimleri ile insan, estetik deneyimini geliştirmiş, evrimleşmesinin başat üretimi olan maddi kültürü yaratma imkânı bulmuştur. 19. yüzyılın son çeyreğinden itibaren felsefede ortaya çıkan fenomenolojik yaklaşım, farklı boyutlar kazanarak felsefe dışındaki birçok alanı etkilemiştir. Bireyin deneyimini merkeze alan fenomenoloji, özellikle estetik deneyimin oluşumuna ve şekillenmesine katkıda bulunan, bedenin maddi kültür ve estetik deneyim yaratmadaki rolüne önem vermiştir. Bu sayede, 20. yüzyılın ilk yarısında, biliş ve deneyim kavramları maddi çevre ile birlikte ele alınmaya başlanmıştır. 1970’li yıllardan itibaren ise insanın zihinsel süreçlerinin oluşumunda beden ve çevrenin etkisini merkeze alan ‘art-bilişselci’ (postcognitivism) yaklaşımlar ortaya çıkarmıştır. Bu yaklaşımlardan hareketle, bedenin ve sosyal yapının insanın zihinsel süreçleri üzerindeki etkisi, estetik deneyim ve maddi kültür unsurlarına odaklanılarak incelenmeye başlamıştır. Bu makale, evrimsel estetik temasını maddi kültür kavramı ile birlikte ele alan ilk Türkçe çalışmadır. Makale, estetik duyarlılığın kökenine dair tartışmalardan başlayıp, deneyim ve maddi kültür kavramını bilişsellik ve sosyallik teması ile inceleyen ‘Aktör Ağ Kuramı’ (Actor–network theory) ile sonlanmaktadır. Makaledeki tartışmaya göre, insan, estetik duyarlılık sayesinde, maddi kültür ürünleri inşa ederek bilişsel kapasitesini ve bilişsel esnekliğini arttırmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Estetik Duyarlılık
• Maddi Kültür
• Bilişsellik
• Aktör-Ağ Kuramı
• Homo Aestheticus

Kaynakça

1. Ackrill, J. L. (1997). Essays on plato and aristotle. Oxford University Press.
2. Airaksinen, T. (2024). Fetishism for Our Times: A Rhetorical and Philosophical Exploration. Religions, 15(10), 1192.
3. Alessandroni, N., Malafouris, L., & Gallagher, S. (2024). An Ecological Approach to Conceptual Thinking in Material Engagement. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 20(2), 84-103.
4. Algra, K. (2017). Hellenistic Philosophy. In Ancient Philosophy (pp. 409-494). Routledge.
5. Allen, A. (2020). Cynicism. MIT Press.
6. Arbib, M. A., Fragaszy, D. M., Healy, S. D., & Stout, D. (2023). Tooling and construction: From nut-cracking and stone-tool making to bird nests and language. Current Research in Behavioral Sciences, 5, 100121.
7. Ashraf, Q., & Galor, O. (2013). The “Out of Africa” hypothesis, human genetic diversity, and comparative economic development. American Economic Review, 103(1), 1-46.
8. Bailey, A. M. (2015). Animalism. Philosophy Compass, 10(12), 867-883.

9. Başaran, İ. (2018). Muhafazakâr Yahudilikte İbadet. Türk İslam Medeniyeti Akademik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 13(25), 215-230.
10. Blain, J. (2004). Paganism. In Social Identities (pp. 172-191). Routledge.
11. Brady, E., & Prior, J. (2020). Environmental aesthetics: A synthetic review. People and Nature, 2(2), 254-266.
12. Bruner, E., Fedato, A., Silva-Gago, M., Alonso-Alcalde, R., Terradillos-Bernal, M., Fernández-Durantes, M. Á., & Martín-Guerra, E. (2018). Cognitive archeology, body cognition, and hand–tool interaction. Progress in brain research, 238, 325-345.
13. Brunschwig, J., & Sedley, D. (2003). Hellenistic philosophy. The Cambridge companion to Greek and Roman philosophy, 151-183.
14. Buckareff, A. A. (2022). Pantheism. Cambridge University Press.
15. Callon, M. (1999). Actor‐network theory—the market test. The sociological review, 47(S1), 181-195.
16. Callon, M., & Blackwell, O. (2001). Actor network theory. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 1, 62-66.
17. Carlson, A. (2005). Environmental aesthetics. In The Routledge companion to aesthetics (pp. 561-576). Routledge.
18. Cerri, G. (2016). A Scholarch Denied: Leucippus, Founder of Ancient Atomism. Submerged Literature in Ancient Greek Culture, 2, 11-24.
19. Chamberlain, A. T. (2000). On the evolution of human aesthetic preferences. Assemblage: University of Sheffield Graduate Student Journal of Archaeology, 5.
20. Chang, C. Y. (2011). Creativity and Taoism: A study of Chinese philosophy, art and poetry. Singing Dragon.
21. Cherniss, H. F. (2016). The characteristics and effects of Presocratic philosophy. In Studies in Presocratic Philosophy Volume 1 (pp. 1-28). Routledge.
22. Chidester, D. (2021). Animizm. Motif Akademi Halkbilimi Dergisi, 14(33), 427-433.
23. Childe, V. G. (2004). Foundations of social archaeology: Selected writings of V. gordon childe. Rowman Altamira.
24. Clark, K. R. (2018). Learning theories: cognitivism. Radiologic technology, 90(2), 176-179.
25. Consoli, G. (2014). The emergence of the modern mind: An evolutionary perspective on aesthetic experience. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 72(1), 37-55.
26. Coolidge, F. L., & Wynn, T. (2016). An introduction to cognitive archaeology. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(6), 386-392.
27. Cooper, J. W. (2006). Panentheism, the other God of the philosophers: from Plato to the Present. Baker Academic.
28. Cotesta, V. (2021). Zhuangzi and Lao Tzu: Harmony in Taoist Philosophy. In The Heavens and the Earth: Graeco-Roman, Ancient Chinese, and Mediaeval Islamic Images of the World (pp. 232-246). Brill.
29. Crowell, S. (2010). Phenomenology and aesthetics; or, why art matters. In Art and phenomenology (pp. 47-69). Routledge.
30. Curd, P. (2002). The metaphysics of physics: mixture and separation in Empedocles and Anaxagoras. Presocratic philosophy: Essays in honour of Alexander Mourelatos, 139-158.
31. Currie, A., & Killin, A. (2019). From things to thinking: Cognitive archaeology. Mind & Language, 34(2), 263-279.
32. Davidson, I. (2010). The archeology of cognitive evolution. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 1(2), 214-229.
33. Davies, S. (2012). The artful species: Aesthetics, art, and evolution. OUP Oxford.
34. Davies, S. J. (2005). Ellen Dissanayake’s evolutionary aesthetic. Biology and Philosophy, 20, 291-304.
35. De Blois, L., Mellor, S., & van der Spek, R. J. (2019). An introduction to the ancient world. Routledge.
36. Destéfano, M. (2021). Cognitivism and the intellectualist vision of the mind. Phenomenology and Mind, (21), 142-153.
37. Dietrich, B. C. (2016). The origins of Greek religion. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG.
38. Dissanayake, E. (1992). Homo aestheticus: Where art comes from and why. Free Press.
39. Dissanayake, E. (1999). Antecedents of the temporal arts in early mother-infant interaction.
40. Dissanayake, E. (2001). Aesthetic incunabula. Philosophy and Literature, 25(2), 335-346.
41. Dissanayake, E. (2003). Retrospective on homo aestheticus. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies.
42. Dissanayake, E. (2015). “Aesthetic primitives”: Fundamental biological elements of a naturalistic aesthetics. Aisthesis. Pratiche, linguaggi e saperi dell’estetico, 8(1), 6-24.
43. Dissanayake, E. (2017). Roots and route of the artification hypothesis. AVANT. Pismo Awangardy Filozoficzno-Naukowej, (1), 15-32.
44. Dissanayake, E. (2018). The concept of artification. Early Rock Art of the American West: The Geometric Enigma, 91-129.
45. Dissanayake, E. (2021). Ancestral human mother–infant interaction was an adaptation that gave rise to music and dance. Behav. Brain Sci, 44, E68.
46. Dufrenne, M. (1973). The phenomenology of aesthetic experience. Northwestern University Press.
47. Egenter, N. (1994). Semantic architecture and the interpretation of prehistoric rock art: An ethno-(pre-) historical approach. Semiotica, 100(2-4), 201-266.
48. Egenter, N. (2004). Vernacular Architecture-Where Do The Symbolic Meanings Come From?. V: AR Arhitektura raziskave, 1, 6-15.
49. Eldridge, R. (1996). Is animism alive and well?. In Can religion be explained away? (pp. 3-25). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
50. Elias, S. (2012). Origins of human innovation and creativity: Breaking old paradigms. In Developments in Quaternary Sciences (Vol. 16, pp. 1-13). Elsevier.
51. Facchini, F. (2006). Culture, Speciation and the Genus Homo in Early Humans. Human Evolution, 21, 51-57.
52. Fenner, D. E. (2003). Aesthetic experience and aesthetic analysis. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 40-53.
53. Figal, G. (2015). Aesthetics as phenomenology: The appearance of things. Indiana University Press.
54. Finkelberg, A. (2017). Heraclitus: The Life and the Book. In Heraclitus and Thales’ Conceptual Scheme: A Historical Study (pp. 19-40). Brill.
55. Finkelberg, A. (2017). Heraclitus and Thales’ conceptual scheme: A historical study (Vol. 23). Brill.
56. Flannery, K. V., & Marcus, J. (1998). Cognitive archaeology. Reader in archaeological theory: Post-processual and cognitive approaches, 35-48.
57. Frankfort, H. (1948). Ancient Egyptian religion: an interpretation. Columbia University Press.
58. Gallagher, S., & Ransom, T. G. (2016). Artifacting minds: Material engagement theory and joint action. Embodiment in evolution and culture, 337-351.
59. Gallop, D. (2003). Aristotle: Aesthetics and philosophy of mind. In Routledge History of Philosophy Volume II (pp. 97-129). Routledge.
60. Gallop, D. (2003). Aristotle: Aesthetics and philosophy of mind. In Routledge History of Philosophy Volume II (pp. 97-129). Routledge.
61. Garnham, A. (2019). Cognitivism. In The Routledge companion to philosophy of psychology (pp. 99-110). Routledge.
62. Gibert, J. (2003). The sophists. The Blackwell guide to ancient philosophy, 27-50.
63. Goldman, A. (2005). The aesthetic. In The Routledge companion to aesthetics (pp. 275-286). Routledge.
64. Göcke, B. P. (2013). Panentheism and classical theism. Sophia, 52, 61-75.
65. Hall, R. W. (1990). Art and morality in Plato: A reappraisal. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 24(3), 5-13.
66. Hayes, P. J. (1978). Cognitivism as a paradigm. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(2), 238-239.
67. Heras-Escribano, M. (2021). Pragmatism, enactivism, and ecological psychology: towards a unified approach to post-cognitivism. Synthese, 198(Suppl 1), 337-363.
68. Hoffmann, M. (2016). Cognitive Archeology, Cognitive Neurology, and the Unraveling of the Connectome: Divulging Brain Function from Fractured Skulls and Fractured Minds. Cognitive, Conative and Behavioral Neurology: An Evolutionary Perspective, 11-34.
69. Hölscher, U. (2016). Anaximander and the beginnings of Greek philosophy. In Studies in Presocratic Philosophy Volume 1 (pp. 281-322). Routledge.
70. Hsu, H. F. (2016). Siddhartha: An Encounter of Buddhism and Postmodernism. Chang Gung Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 9(1), 151-175.
71. Huntington, S. L., & Huntington, J. C. (2014). The Art of Ancient India: Buddhist, Hindu, Jain. Motilal Banarsidass. Ihde, D., & Malafouris, L. (2019). Homo faber revisited: Postphenomenology and material engagement theory. Philosophy & Technology, 32, 195-214.
72. Iliopoulos, A. (2019). Material Engagement Theory and its philosophical ties to pragmatism. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18(1), 39-63.
73. Jain, A. K. (2009). Faith & philosophy of Jainism (Vol. 6). Gyan Publishing House.
74. Janko, R. (1987). Aristotle: Poetics. Hackett Publishing.
75. Johnston, S. I. (2004). Religions of the ancient world: a guide. Harvard University Press.
76. Kahn, C. H. (1960). Anaximander and the origins of Greek cosmology. Columbia University Press.
77. Kristensen, W. B. (1960). Animistic and Dynamistic Ideas. In The Meaning of Religion: Lectures in the Phenomenology of Religion (pp. 173-186). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
78. Langdon, J. H. (2023). Human evolution: Bones, cultures, and genes. Springer Nature.
79. Lataster, R., & Bilimoria, P. (2018). Panentheism (s): What it is and is not. Journal of World Philosophies, 3(2), 49-64.
80. Latour, B. (2007). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oup Oxford.
81. Leddy, T. (2012). Aesthetization, artification, and aquariums. Contemporary Aesthetics (Journal Archive), (4), 6.
82. Lefas, P. (2000). On the fundamental terms of Vitruvius's architectural theory. Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies, 179-197.
83. Leigh, F. (2009). Plato on Art, Perspective, and Beauty in the Sophist. Literature & Aesthetics, 19(1), 183-214.
84. Leszl, W. G. (2004). Plato’s attitude to poetry and the fine arts, and the origins of aesthetics. Part I. Études platoniciennes, (1), 113-197.
85. Levine, M. P. (2002). Pantheism: A non-theistic concept of deity. Routledge.
86. Lloyd, A. C. (1990). The anatomy of Neoplatonism. Oxford University Press.
87. Long, A. A. (1986). Hellenistic philosophy: Stoics, epicureans, sceptics. Univ of California Press.
88. Luhrmann, T. M. (2012). Touching the divine: Recent research on neo-paganism and neo-shamanism. Reviews in anthropology, 41(2), 136-150.
89. Magro, A. (2013). Hominid evolution and the aesthetic experience. Rivista di estetica, (54), 99-116.
90. Malafouris, L. (2013). How things shape the mind: A theory of material engagement. MIT press.
91. Malafouris, L. (2016). Material engagement and the embodied mind. Cognitive models in Palaeolithic archaeology, 69-82.
92. Malafouris, L. (2019). Mind and material engagement. Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences, 18(1), 1-17.
93. March, P. L. (2019). Playing with clay and the uncertainty of agency. A material engagement theory perspective. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 18, 133-151.
94. Marković, S. (2012). Components of aesthetic experience: aesthetic fascination, aesthetic appraisal, and aesthetic emotion. i-Perception, 3(1), 1-17.
95. Massey, G. (2008). Totemism, tattoo and fetishism as forms of sign language. Cosimo, Inc..
96. McKirahan, R. (2003). Presocratic philosophy. The Blackwell guide to ancient philosophy, 5-26.
97. McMahon, J. A. (2011). Beauty as Harmony of the Soul: the Aesthetic of the Stoics.
98. Meneganzin, A., & Killin, A. (2024). Beyond reasonable doubt: reconsidering Neanderthal aesthetic capacity. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 1-33.
99. Meyer, B., & Verrips, J. (2008). Aesthetics. In Key words in religion, media and culture (pp. 36-46). Routledge.
100. Mitias, M. H. (1988). What makes an experience aesthetic? (Vol. 51). Rodopi.
101. Moran, D. (2002). Introduction to phenomenology. routledge.
102. Mourelatos, A. P. (1999). Parmenides and the Pluralists. Apeiron, 32(2), 117-130.
103. Mullins, R. T. (2016). The difficulty with demarcating panentheism. Sophia, 55, 325-346.
104. Nance, R. F. (2022). Siddhārtha Gautama: Beyond the Historical Figure. In The Routledge Handbook of Indian Buddhist Philosophy (pp. 27-45). Routledge.
105. Nasir, K., ISuliaman, I., & Usman, A. H. (2019). The notion of animism: some views from prophetic tradition and western anthropologist perspectives. Humanities & Social Sciences Reviews, 7(4), 348-358.
106. Naukkarinen, O. (2012). Variations on artification. Contemporary Aesthetics (Journal Archive), (4), 2.
107. Naukkarinen, O. (2013). What is' Everyday'in Everyday Aesthetics?. Contemporary Aesthetics (Journal Archive), 11(1), 14.
108. Nilsson, M. P. (1971). The Minoan-Mycenaean religion and its survival in Greek religion (Vol. 9). Biblo & Tannen Publishers.
109. Norberg-Schulz, C. (1968). Intentions in architecture (No. 74). MIT press.
110. Norberg-Schulz, C. (2019). Genius loci: towards a phenomenology of architecture (1979). Historic Cities: Issues in Urban Conservation, 8, 31.
111. Osborne, C. (2004). Presocratic philosophy: A very short introduction (Vol. 103). Oxford University Press.
112. Paden, R., Harmon, L. K., & Milling, C. R. (2012). Ecology, evolution, and aesthetics: Towards an evolutionary aesthetics of nature. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 52(2), 123-139.
113. Palmer, J. (2009). Parmenides and presocratic philosophy. OUP Oxford.
114. Palmer, J. (2015). Eleatic school. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Classics.
115. Papapetros, S. (2012). Movements of the soul: traversing animism, fetishism, and the uncanny. Discourse, 34(2-3), 185-208.
116. Partee, M. H. (1971). Inspiration in the Aesthetics of Plato. The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 30(1), 87-95.
117. Potter, J. (2000). Post-cognitive psychology. Theory & Psychology, 10(1), 31-37.
118. Prier, R. A. (2011). Archaic logic: symbol and structure in Heraclitus, Parmenides and Empedocles (Vol. 11). Walter de Gruyter.
119. Pullman, B. (2001). The atom in the history of human thought. Oxford University Press, USA.
120. Quirke, S. (2014). Exploring religion in ancient Egypt. John Wiley & Sons.
121. Rapoport, A. (1985). Thinking about home environments: A conceptual framework. In Home environments (pp. 255-286). Boston, MA: Springer US.
122. Rapoport, A. (1990). The meaning of the built environment: A nonverbal communication approach. University of Arizona Press.
123. Rapoport, A. (2000). Theory, culture and housing. Housing, theory and society, 17(4), 145-165.
124. Rapoport, A. (2002). Spatial organization and the built environment. In Companion encyclopedia of anthropology (pp. 494-536). Routledge.
125. Rapoport, A. (2013). Human aspects of urban form: towards a man—environment approach to urban form and design. Elsevier.
126. Renfrew, C. (2004). Towards a theory of material engagement. Rethinking materiality: The engagement of mind with the material world, 23-31.
127. Reyes, L. D., & Sherwood, C. C. (2014). Neuroscience and human brain evolution. In Human Paleoneurology (pp. 11-37). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
128. Riedweg, C. (2008). Pythagoras: His life, teaching, and influence. Cornell University Press.
129. Rusch, H., & Voland, E. (2013). Evolutionary aesthetics: an introduction to key concepts and current issues. Aisthesis. Pratiche, linguaggi e saperi dell’estetico, 6(2), 113-133.
130. Schneider, M. A. (1987). Culture-as-text in the work of Clifford Geertz. Theory and Society, 809-839.
131. Scranton, R. L. (1974). Vitruvius' Arts of Architecture. Hesperia: The Journal of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, 43(4), 494-499.
132. Sewell, W. H. (1997). Geertz, cultural systems, and history: From synchrony to transformation. Representations, (59), 35-55.
133. Shakeshaft, H. (2019). The Terminology for Beauty in the Iliad and the Odyssey. The Classical Quarterly, 69(1), 1-22.
134. Shangina, E. I. (2018). The triad of vitruvius in the modern world. In International Conference on Geometry and Graphics (pp. 2095-2107). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
135. Shapiro, R. (2019). Artification as process. Cultural Sociology, 13(3), 265-275.
136. Sinnerbrink, R. (2019). Guest Editor's Introduction: Phenomenology Encounters Cognitivism. Projections, 13(2), 1-19.
137. Sisko, J. E. (2003). Anaxagoras' Parmenidean cosmology: Worlds within worlds within the one. Apeiron, 36(2), 87-114.
138. Sisko, J. E. (2013). Anaxagoras and Empedocles in the Shadow of Elea. In Routledge Companion to Ancient Philosophy (pp. 49-64). Routledge.
139. Small, S. (2013). New Visions of the Zhuangzi. Journal of Daoist Studies, 6(6), 145-160.
140. Sommer, D. A. (2014). Confucianism and the Arts. In The Oxford Handbook of Religion and the Arts (p. 388). Oxford University Press, USA.
141. Stanton, G. R. (1973). Sophists and philosophers: problems of classification. The American Journal of Philology, 94(4), 350-364.
142. Starr, C. G. (1991). A history of the ancient world. Oxford University Press, USA.
143. Stausberg, M. (2004). Contextualizing the contexts. On the study of Zoroastrian Rituals. In Zoroastrian Rituals in Context (pp. 1-56). Brill.
144. Sutton, J., & Hodder, I. (2020). Personal memory, the scaffolded mind, and cognitive change in the Neolithic. Consciousness, creativity, and self at the dawn of settled life, 209-229.
145. Tattersall, I., & Schwartz, J. H. (2009). Evolution of the genus Homo. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 37(1), 67-92.
146. Te Molder, H. (2015). What happened to post-cognitive psychology?. In Discursive Psychology (pp. 87-100). Routledge.
147. Teeter, E. (2011). Religion and ritual in ancient Egypt. Cambridge University Press.
148. Thornhill, R. (2003). Darwinian aesthetics informs traditional aesthetics. In Evolutionary aesthetics (pp. 9-35). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
149. Tsouna, V. (1998). The epistemology of the Cyrenaic School. Cambridge University Press.
150. Tsouna, V. (2016). Cyrenaics and Epicureans on pleasure and the good life: The original debate and its later revivals. In Strategies of Polemics in Greek and Roman Philosophy (pp. 113-149). Brill.
151. Vasunia, P. (2007). The philosopher’s Zarathushtra. Persian Responses: Political and Cultural Interaction With (in) the Achaemenid Empire, Swansea, 237-264.
152. Vyshedskiy, A. (2019). Neuroscience of imagination and implications for human evolution.
153. Wallace, B., Ross, A., Davies, J., & Anderson, T. (2015). The mind, the body and the world: Psychology after cognitivism?. Andrews UK Limited.
154. Warburton, D. A. (2014). Minoan and Mycenaean religion. In The Handbook of Religions in Ancient Europe (pp. 103-138). Routledge.
155. Williamson, A. (2006). Cynicism. The American poetry review, 35(3), 39-43.
156. Wilson, C. (2008). Epicureanism at the Origins of Modernity. OUP Oxford.
157. Wohlwill, J. F. (1976). Environmental aesthetics: The environment as a source of affect. In Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research. Volume 1 (pp. 37-86). Boston, MA: Springer US.
158. Wood, B. (1993). Early Homo: how many species?. In Species, species concepts and primate evolution (pp. 485-522). Boston, MA: Springer US.
159. Wood, B., & Collard, M. (1999). Is Homo Defined by Culture?'. In PROCEEDINGS-BRITISH ACADEMY (Vol. 99, pp. 11-24). OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS INC..
160. Yılmaz, B. (2021). Erken Dönem Kur’an Tefsirlerine Göre Medine Yahudilerinin Kimlik ve Geleneklerine Genel Bir Bakış. Milel ve Nihal, 18(1), 67-96.
161. York, M. (2003). Pagan theology: Paganism as a world religion. NYU Press.
162. Zhmud, L. (2013). Pythagorean Communities. Doctrine and Doxography, 33-52.