Erkenntnis

, Volume 76, Issue 2, pp 243–261 | Cite as

Explaining Perceptual Entitlement

Original Article

Abstract

This paper evaluates the prospects of harnessing “anti-individualism” about the contents of perceptual states to give an account of the epistemology of perception, making special reference to Tyler Burge’s (2003) paper, “Perceptual Entitlement”. I start by clarifying what kind of warrant is provided by perceptual experience, and I go on to survey different ways one might explain the warrant provided by perceptual experience in terms of anti-individualist views about the individuation of perceptual states. I close by motivating accounts which instead give a more prominent role to consciousness.

References

  1. Alston, W. P. (1989). Epistemic justification: Essays in the theory of knowledge. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bergmann, M. (2006). Justification without awareness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brewer, B. (1999). Perception and reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Burge, T. (2003). Perceptual entitlement. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 67, 503–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne, A. (2001). Intentionalism defended. Philosophical Review, 110, 199–240.Google Scholar
  6. Casullo, A. (2007). What is entitlement? Acta Analytica, 22, 267–279.Google Scholar
  7. Goldman, A. (2008). Reliability and immediate justification. In Q. Smith (Ed.), Epistemology: New essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Huemer, M. (2001). Skepticism and the veil of perception. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  9. Huemer, M. (2007). Compassionate phenomenal conservatism. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 74, 30–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jackson, A. (2011). Appearances, rationality, and justified belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 82, 564–593.Google Scholar
  11. Johnston, M. (2006). Better than mere knowledge? In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Malmgren, A. (2006). Is there a priori knowledge by testimony? Philosophical Review, 115, 119–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martin, M. (2001). Epistemic openness and perceptual defeasibility. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 63, 441–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McDowell, J. (1995). Knowledge and the internal. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 55, 877–893.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Neta, R. (2010). Can a priori entitlement be preserved by testimony? In A. Haddock, A. Millar, & D. H. Pritchard (Eds.). Social epistemology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Peacocke, C. (2004). The realm of reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and proper function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Plantinga, A. (1996). Respondeo. In J. Kvanvig (Ed.), Warrant in contemporary epistemology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  19. Pollock, J. (1974). Knowledge and justification. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Pryor, J. (2000). The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs, 34, 517–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pryor, J. (2001). Highlights of recent epistemology. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 52, 95–124.Google Scholar
  22. Pryor, J. (2004). What’s wrong with Moore’s argument? Philosophical Issues, 14, 349–378.Google Scholar
  23. Sawyer, S., & Majors, B. (2005). The epistemological argument for content externalism. Philosophical Perspectives, 19, 257–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Silins, N. (2008). Basic justification and the moorean response to the skeptic. Oxford studies in epistemology: volume 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Silins, N. (Forthcoming). Seeing through the ‘veil of perception’. Mind.Google Scholar
  26. Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, color, and content. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  27. Wedgwood, R. (2002). Internalism explained. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 349–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Sage School of PhilosophyCornell UniversityIthacaUSA

Personalised recommendations