, Volume 150, Issue 2, pp 281–325 | Cite as

Representation and the First-Person Perspective



The orthodox view in the study of representation is that a strictly third-person objective methodology must be employed. The acceptance of this methodology is shown to be a fundamental and debilitating error. Toward this end I defend what I call “the particularity requirement, ”discuss an important distinction between representers and information bearers, and identify what I call “the fundamental fact of representation” I argue that any theory of representation must accommodate these, but that any theory that also is based upon a strictly third-person methodology lacks the resources to provide for any of them. It is shown that this failure extends to teleological accounts of representation, despite appearances to the contrary. In the course of this, I argue for the acceptance of a methodological principle, methodological chauvinism, and I show how it implicates a restricted use of the first-person perspective in the study of representation. I explain a nonphenomenal first-person concept, minimal content, which I have introduced and defended more fully elsewhere, the features of which lead to the recognition of a unique intentional state that I call the fundamental intentional state. It is so called since “normal” intentional states presuppose it. Importantly, the logical structure of this state is different from all other intentional states. Lastly, I argue that the expanded methodology I adopt is neither unscientific nor anthropomorphic, despite its employment of a first-person perspective. Ironically, it is the exclusive use of third-person methodologies that leads to anthropomorphism in the study of representation.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Armstrong, D. 1973Belief, Truth, and KnowledgeCambridge University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Block, Ned, Flanagan, O., Güzeldere, G. 1997The Nature of ConsciousnessMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  3. Burge, T. 1979‘Individualism and the Mental’Midwest Studies in Philosophy.473121Google Scholar
  4. Burge, T. 1997

    ‘Two Kinds of Consciousness’

    Block, N.Flanagan, O.Güzeldere, G. eds. The Nature of ConsciousnessMIT PressCambridge
    Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers, D. 1996The Conscious MindOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Chalmers, D. eds. 2002The Philosophy of MindOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Churchland, P. S. 1986Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Theory of Mind/BrainMIT PressCambridge MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  8. Churchland, P. S., P. M.,  1983‘Stalking the Wild Epistemic Engine’Nous17518Google Scholar
  9. Churchland, P. S., P. M.,  1998On the Contrary: Critical EssaysMIT Press CambridgeMA1987–1997Google Scholar
  10. Dennett, D. 1978‘A Cure for the Common Code?’MIT Press CambridgeMassachusetts90109BrainstormsGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett, D.: 1987,‘True Believers’. The Intentional Stance, 13–37.Google Scholar
  12. Dennett, D. 1991‘Real Patterns’Journal of Philosophy882751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dretske, F.I. 1985‘Machines and the Mental’APA592333Presidential AddressGoogle Scholar
  14. Dretske, F.I. 1995Naturalizing the MindMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Fodor, J.: 1986, ‘Why Paramecia Don’t Have Mental Representations’, in Peter A. French, Theodore E. Uehling, Jr. and Howard K. Wettstein (eds.), Midwest Studies in Philosophy X, Minneapolis, UM Press, Minnesota. pp. 3–25.Google Scholar
  16. Georgalis, N. 1986‘Internationality and Representation’International Studies in PhilosophyXVIII4558Google Scholar
  17. Georgalis, N. 1990No Access for the ExternalistMind99101108Google Scholar
  18. Georgalis, N. 1994‘Asymmetry of Access to Intentional States’Erkenntnis4085211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Georgalis, N. 1996‘Awareness, Understanding, and Functionalism’Erkenntnis44225256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Georgalis, N. 1999‘Rethinking Burge’s Thought Experiment’Synthese118145164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Georgalis, N.: 2000, ‘Minds, Brains, and Chaos’, In R. Ellis and N. Newton, (eds) The Cauldron of Consciousness. John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 181–203.Google Scholar
  22. Georgalis, N. 2003‘The Fiction of Phenomenal Intentionality’Consciousness and Emotion4243256Google Scholar
  23. Georgalis, N.: (forthcoming), The Primacy of the Subjective: Foundation for a Unified Theory of Mind, MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  24. Horgan, T. and J. Tienson.: 2002, ‘The Intentionality of Phenomenology and the Phenomenology of Intentionality’ in Chalmers’ anthology (2002).Google Scholar
  25. Kripke, S. 1982Wittgenstein on Rules and Private LanguageHUPCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Millikan, R.G. 1989‘Biosemantics’Journal of PhilosophyLXXXVI281297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nagel, T. 1980

    ‘What Is It Like to Be a Bat’

    Block, Ned eds. Readings in Philosophy of PsychologyHarvard University PressCambridge159168
    Google Scholar
  28. Nagel, T. 1986The View From NowhereOxford University PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Pitt, D.: (forthcoming), ‘The Phenomenology of Cognition’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research.Google Scholar
  30. Pylyshyn, Z. 1980Behavioral and Brain Science3443Google Scholar
  31. Rosenthal, David M.: 1997, ‘A Theory of Consciousness’ in Block, et. al.Google Scholar
  32. Searle J. R. (1979). ‘Intentionality and the Use of Language’. In Margalit A., (eds). Meaning and Use. D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht Holland, pp, 1-10Google Scholar
  33. Searle, J. R.: 1983, Intentionality, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Searle, J. R. 1984‘Intentionality and its Place in Nature’Synthese61316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Searle, J. R. 1992Rediscovery of the MindMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  36. Searle, J. R. 1995The Construction of Social RealityThe Free PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  37. Siewert, Charles P.: 1998,The Significance of Consciousness,Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Strawson, G. 1994Mental RealityMIT PressCambridgeGoogle Scholar
  39. Gulick, R. 1988‘A Functionalist Plea for Self-Consciousness’Philosophical Review.97149181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Gulick, R. 1990

    ‘Functionalism, Information and Content’

    Lycan, William G. eds. Mind and CognitionBasil BlackwellCambridge107129
    Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyEast Carolina UnivertsityGreenvilleUS

Personalised recommendations