Synthese

, Volume 180, Issue 3, pp 357–389 | Cite as

A role for abstractionism in a direct realist foundationalism

Article

Abstract

Both traditional and naturalistic epistemologists have long assumed that the examination of human psychology has no relevance to the prescriptive goal of traditional epistemology, that of providing first-person guidance in determining the truth. Contrary to both, I apply insights about the psychology of human perception and concept-formation to a very traditional epistemological project: the foundationalist approach to the epistemic regress problem. I argue that direct realism about perception can help solve the regress problem and support a foundationalist account of justification, but only if it is supplemented by an abstractionist theory of concept-formation, the view that it is possible to abstract concepts directly from the empirically given. Critics of direct realism like Laurence BonJour are correct that an account of direct perception by itself does not provide an adequate account of justification. However a direct realist account of perception can inform the needed theory of concept-formation, and leading critics of abstractionism like McDowell and Sellars, direct realists about perception themselves, fail to appreciate the ways in which their own views about perception help fill gaps in earlier accounts of abstractionism. Recognizing this undercuts both their objections to abstractionism and (therefore) their objections to foundationalism.

Keywords

Epistemology Justification Epistemic regress problem Foundationalism Direct realism Abstractionism Internalism 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler M. (1987) Ten philosophical mistakes. Collier Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Alston W. (1999) Back to the theory of appearing. Philosophical Perspectives 13: 181–203Google Scholar
  3. Anglin J. (1977) Word, object, and conceptual development. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Austin J. L. (1946) Other minds. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 20: 148–187Google Scholar
  5. Austin J. L. (1962) Sense and sensibilia. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bayer, B. (2007a). The varieties of naturalized epistemology: Criticisms and alternatives. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.Google Scholar
  7. Bayer, B. (2007b). From folk psychology to folk epistemology: The status of radical simulation. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.benbayer.com/simulationtheory.pdf.
  8. Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: The use of single word utterances before syntax. Janua linguarum, series minor, 154. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
  9. Bloom L. (1993) The transition from infancy to language. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. BonJour L. (1985) The structure of empirical knowledge. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. BonJour L. (2004) In search of direct realism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 69(2): 349–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. BonJour, L. (2007). Epistemological problems of perception. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob//.
  13. Brewer B. (1999) Foundations of perceptual knowledge. American Philosophical Quarterly 34: 41–55Google Scholar
  14. Brewer B. (2006) Perception and content. European Journal of Philosophy 14(2): 165–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell J. (2002) Reference and consciousness. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cling A. (2007) The epistemic regress problem. Philosophical Studies 140(3): 401–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coady C. A. J. (1992) Testimony: A philosophical study. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Dretske F. (1970) Epistemic operators. The Journal of Philosophy 67(24): 1007–1023CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dretske F. (1995) Naturalizing the mind. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  20. Fodor J., Pylyshyn P. (1981) How direct is visual perception?: Some reflections on Gibson’s ecological approach. Cognition 9: 139–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fumerton R. (1995) Metaepistemology and skepticism. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  22. Fumerton R. (1998) Externalism and epistemological direct realism. The Monist 81(3): 393–406Google Scholar
  23. Geach P. (1957) Mental acts: Their content and their objects. Routledge and Kegan Paul, LondonGoogle Scholar
  24. Gelman S. (2004) Psychological essentialism in children. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8(9): 404–409CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghate, O. (1998). The argument from conflicting appearances. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Calgary, Alberta.Google Scholar
  26. Gibson J. J. (1966) The senses considered as perceptual systems. Houghton-Mifflin Co., BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. Gibson J. J. (1986) The ecological approach to visual perception. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  28. Goldman A. (1979) What is justified belief ?. In: Pappas G. (eds) Justification and knowledge: New studies in epistemology. D. Reidel, BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. Goldman A. (1999) Internalism exposed. The Journal of Philosophy 96(6): 271–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gotthelf, A. (2007). Ayn Rand on concepts: Another approach to abstraction and essence. Metaphysics of science project conference at the University of Birmingham on nature and its classification, 13 October 2007. http://www.bristol.ac.uk/metaphysicsofscience/naicpapers/gotthelf.pdf.
  31. Harré R., Madden E. (1975) Causal powers: A theory of natural necessity. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  32. Huemer M. (2001) Skepticism and the veil of perception. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  33. Huemer M. (2007a) Compassionate phenomenal conservatism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74(1): 30–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Huemer M. (2007b) Epistemic possibility. Synthese 156: 119–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Johnston M. (2004) The obscure object of hallucination. Philosophical Studies 120: 113–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Keil F. (1992) Concepts, kinds, and cognitive development. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  37. Kelley D. (1984) A theory of abstraction. Cognition and Brain Theory 7(3&4): 329–357Google Scholar
  38. Kelley D. (1986) The evidence of the senses: A realist theory of perception. Louisiana State University Press, Baton RougeGoogle Scholar
  39. Le Morvan P. (2004) Arguments against direct realism and how to counter them. American Philosophical Quarterly 41(3): 221–234Google Scholar
  40. Leslie A., Keeble S. (1987) Do six-month-old infants perceive causality ?. Cognition 25: 265–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Levine S. (2007) Sellars’ critical direct realism. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 15(1): 53–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Locke, J. (1979/1690). In P. H. Nidditch (Ed.), An essay concerning human understanding. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Marr D. (1982) Vision. Freeman Press, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  44. McDowell J. (1996) Mind and world. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  45. McDowell J. (2005) Evans’ Frege. In: Bermudez J. (eds) Thought, reference, and experience: Themes from the philosophy of Gareth Evans. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 42–65Google Scholar
  46. Medin D. L., Ortony A. (1989) Psychological essentialism. In: Vosniadou S., Ortony A. (eds) Similarity and analogical reasoning. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 179–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Michotte A. (1963) The perception of causality. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  48. Modee J. (2000) Observation sentences and joint attention. Synthese 124: 221–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Moser P. (1985) Empirical justification. D. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  50. Namy L., Gentner D. (2002) Making a silk purse out of two sow’s ears: Young children’s use of comparison in category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology 131(1): 5–15Google Scholar
  51. Noë A. (2002) On what we see. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83: 57–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pollock J., Oved I. (2005) Vision, knowledge and the mystery link. Philosophical Perspectives 19: 309–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Porter S. (2006) Restoring the foundations of epistemic justification: A direct realist and conceptualist theory of foundationalism. Lexington Books, Lanham, MDGoogle Scholar
  54. Prinz J. (2002) Furnishing the mind: Concepts and their perceptual basis. MIT Press/Bradford Books, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  55. Putnam H. (1994) Sense, nonsense, and the senses: An inquiry into the powers of the human mind. Journal of Philosophy 91(9): 445–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Quine W.V.O. (1969a) Epistemology naturalized. In: Quine W.V.O. (eds) Ontological relativity and other essays. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 69–90Google Scholar
  57. Quine W.V.O. (1969b) Natural kinds. In: Quine W.V.O. (eds) Ontological relativity and other essays. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 114–138Google Scholar
  58. Quinton A. (1973) The nature of things. Routledge & Kegan Paul, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  59. Rand A. (1990) Introduction to objectivist epistemology (2nd ed.). Meridian, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  60. Reid, T. (1969/1785). Essays on the intellectual powers of man. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  61. Reynolds S. (1991) Knowing how to believe with justification. Philosophical Studies 64: 273–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rosch, E. (1999/1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Margolis & S. Laurence (Eds.), Concepts: Core readings (pp. 189–206). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Originally published in E. Rosch & B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.)Google Scholar
  63. Salmieri, G. (2007, 12 June). Justification as an aspect of conceptualization. Paper presented at Workshop on Normativity and Justification in Epistemology and Ethics, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA.Google Scholar
  64. Salmieri, G. (2008). Aristotle and the problem of concepts. Doctoral dissertation, The University of Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  65. Salmieri, G., & Bayer, B. (2009). How we choose our beliefs. Unpublished manuscript. http://www.benbayer.com/how-we-choose-our-beliefs.pdf.
  66. Schantz H. (2001) The given regained. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62(1): 167–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Schlick M. (1959) The foundation of knowledge. In: Ayer A. J. (eds) Logical positivism. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Scholl B., Tremoulet P. (2000) Perceptual causality and animacy. Trends in Cognitive Science 4(8): 299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sellars W. (1991) Science, perception and reality. Ridgeview, AtascaderoGoogle Scholar
  70. Sellars, W. (1997/1956). Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (Originally published as Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. In H. Feigl & M. Scriven (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, volume I: The foundations of science and the concepts of psychology and psychoanalysis (pp. 253–329). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.)Google Scholar
  71. Sloutsky V. (2003) The role of similarity in the development of categorization. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(6): 246–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Travis C. (2004) The silence of the senses. Mind 113(449): 57–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Williams M. (1996) Unnatural doubts: Epistemological realism and the basis of skepticism. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJGoogle Scholar
  74. Wittgenstein, L. (1969). In G. E. M. Anscombe & G. H. von Wright (Eds.), On certainty. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
  75. Yolton J. (1979) As in a looking-glass: Perceptual acquaintance in eighteenth-century Britain. Journal of the History of Ideas 40(2): 207–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Colorado CollegeColorado SpringsUSA

Personalised recommendations