Acta Analytica

, Volume 26, Issue 1, pp 3–14

What Intentionality Is Like

Article

Abstract

Intentionality is a mark of the mental, as Brentano (1874) noted. Any representation or conception of anything has the feature of intentionality, which informally put, is the feature of being about something that may or may not exist. Visual artworks are about something, whether something literal or abstract. The artwork is a mentalized physical object. Aesthetic experience of the artwork illustrates the nature of intentionality as we focus attention on the phenomenology of the sensory exemplar. This focus of attention on the exemplar in aesthetic experience simultaneously exhibits what the intentional object is like and what our conception of it is like. The exemplar is Janus-faced, looking in one direction outward toward the objects conceived and in the other direction inward toward our conceiving of them. It shows us what intentionality is like and how we know it.

Keywords

Intentionality Representation Exemplar Aesthetic Content Artworks 

References

  1. Brentano, F. (1874). Psychology from an empirical standpoint. O. Kraus (Ed.). English edition: L. L. McAlister (1973). A. C. Rancurello, D. B. Terrell & L. L. McAlister (trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  2. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Fürst, M. (2010). A dualist account of phenomenal concepts. in draft.Google Scholar
  5. Goodman, N. (1968). Languages of art: An approach to a theory of symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  6. Hume, D. (1739). A treatise of human nature. London: John Noon.Google Scholar
  7. Ismael, J. (2007). The situated mind. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32, 127–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kriegel, U. (2004). Moore's paradox and the structure of conscious belief. Erkenntnis, 61, 99–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lewis, D. (1988). What experience teaches. Proceedings of the Russellian Society, 13, 29–57.Google Scholar
  11. Lehrer, K. (1996). Skepticism, lucid content and the metamental loop. In A. Clark et al. (Eds.), Philosophy and cognitive science (pp. 73–93). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  12. Lehrer, K. (1996a). Consciousness. In Alfred Schramm (Ed.), Philosophie in Österreich (pp. 20–32). Vienna: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.Google Scholar
  13. Lehrer, K. (2006). Consciousness, representation and knowledge. In Uriah Kriegel & Kenneth Williford (Eds.), Self-representational approaches to consciousness (pp. 409–420). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Papineau, D. (2002). Thinking about Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Papineau, D. (2007). Phenomenal and perceptual concepts. In Torin Alter & Sven Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal concepts and phenomenal knowledge (pp. 111–145). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Reid, T. (1785). Essays on the intellectual powers of man. Edinburgh: Bell.Google Scholar
  17. Spencer-Brown, G. (1969). Laws of form. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  18. Tye, M. (2005). On the nonconceptual content of experience. In M. E. Reicher & J. C. Marek (Eds.), Experience and analysis (pp. 221–239). Vienna: Öbv & Hpt.Google Scholar
  19. Wittgenstein, L. (1922). Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. C.K. Ogden (trans.). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.TucsonUSA
  2. 2.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA
  3. 3.University of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations