Advertisement

Arguments from Phenomenology

  • Eva Schmidt
Chapter
  • 393 Downloads
Part of the Studies in Brain and Mind book series (SIBM, volume 8)

Abstract

I examine two arguments for nonconceptualism from the phenomenal character of perceptual experience. The idea is that only the assumption that experience content is nonconceptual does justice to the phenomenology of experience. In particular, if experience content is conceptual, we cannot account for its finely grained representational content. The problem is that visual color experience makes differences between shades of a color that are much more fine-grained than our conceptual repertoire allows. Further, conceptualism is incompatible with the situation-dependence of perceptual content Kelly (Philos Phenomenol Res 62:601–608, 2001b). For instance, it is hard if not impossible to make room, in purely conceptual terms, for the difference between perceiving a certain shade of purple instantiated by a steel ball as compared to seeing it instantiated by a wool carpet. As to the argument from fineness of grain, I concede that the conceptualist’s demonstrative strategy against the argument is initially successful. However, it fails in the end because of problems with the phenomenal character of hallucination, which cannot be accounted for by appeal to only demonstrative concepts. As to the argument from situation-dependence, I point out that the conceptualist cannot convincingly account for the perceived presence, at the same time and in the same place, of situation-dependent and independent properties in experience.

Keywords

Perceptual Experience Steel Ball Visual Experience Phenomenal Character Perceptual Content 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Bengson, J., Grube, E., & Korman, D. (2011). A new framework for conceptualism. Noûs, 45, 167–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brewer, B. (1999). Perception and reason. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brewer, B. (2005). Perceptual experience has conceptual content. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (pp. 217–230). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  4. Brewer, B. (2006). Perception and content. European Journal of Philosophy, 14, 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Byrne, A. (2003). Consciousness and nonconceptual content. Philosophical Studies, 113, 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Byrne, A. (2005). Perception and conceptual content. In M. Steup & E. Sosa (Eds.), Contemporary debates in epistemology (pp. 231–250). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  7. Byrne, A., & Logue, H. (2008). Either/or. In A. Haddock & F. Macpherson (Eds.), Disjunctivism: perception, action, knowledge (pp. 57–94). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chalmers, D. (2006). Perception and the fall from Eden. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience (pp. 49–125). Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chuard, P. (2006). Demonstrative concepts without re-identification. Philosophical Studies, 130, 153–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chuard, P. (2007). The riches of experience. In R. Genarro (Ed.), Consciousness and concepts: special issue of the journal of consciousness studies (pp. 20–42). Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Coliva, A. (2003). The argument from the finer-grained content of colour experiences: a redefinition of its role within the debate between McDowell and non-conceptual theorists. Dialectica, 57, 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dretske, F. (1969). Seeing and knowing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Dretske, F. (1981). Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  14. Evans, G. (1982). The varieties of reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gennaro, R. (2012). The consciousness paradox: consciousness, concepts, and higher-order thoughts. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  16. Gunther, Y. (2003). Essays on nonconceptual content. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  17. Heck, R. (2000). Nonconceptual content and the ‘space of reasons’. Philosophical Review, 109, 483–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jackson, F. (2003). Mind and illusion. In A. O’Hear (Ed.), Minds and persons (pp. 251–271). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kelly, S. (1999). What do we see (when we do)? Philosophical Topics 27, 107–128.Google Scholar
  20. Kelly, S. (2001a). Demonstrative concepts and experience. Philosophical Review, 110, 397–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelly, S. (2001b). The non-conceptual content of perceptual experience: situation dependence and fineness of grain. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62, 601–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, M. (2004/2009a). The limits of self-awareness. In A. Byrne & H. Logue (Eds.), Disjunctivism: contemporary readings (pp. 271–317). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  23. McDowell, J. (1982/2009c). Criteria, defeasibility and knowledge. In A. Byrne & H. Logue (Eds.), Disjunctivism: contemporary readings (pp. 75–85). Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  24. McDowell, J. (1994a). Mind and world. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. McDowell, J. (1998). Reply to commentators. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58, 403–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Merleau-Ponty, M. (1974). Phänomenologie der Wahrnehmung. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  27. Peacocke, C. (1992). A study of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  28. Peacocke, C. (1998). Nonconceptual content defended. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 58, 381–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peacocke, C. (2001a). Does perception have a nonconceptual content?. Journal of Philosophy, 98, 239–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Peacocke, C. (2001b). Phenomenology and nonconceptual content. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 62, 609–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Speaks, J. (2005). Is there a problem about nonconceptual content?. Philosophical Review, 114, 359–398. http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/philo/speaks/papers/nonconceptual-penultimate.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2006.
  32. Tye, M. (1995). Ten problems of consciousness. Cambridge, MA: MIT.Google Scholar
  33. Tye, M. (2005). On the nonconceptual content of experience. In M. Reicher & J. Marek (Eds.), Experience and analysis: proceedings of the 27th international Wittgenstein symposium (pp. 221–242). Vienna: öbv&hpt.Google Scholar
  34. Tye, M. (2006). Nonconceptual content, richness, and fineness of grain. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience (pp. 504–530). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Veillet, B. (2014). Belief, re-identification and fineness of grain. European Journal of Philosophy, 22, 229–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wright, C. (2002a). Human nature? In N. Smith (Ed.), Reading McDowell: on mind and world, (pp. 140–159). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Wright, C. (2002b). Postscript to Chapter 8. In N. Smith (Ed.), Reading McDowell: on mind and world. London: Routledge, pp. 160–173.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Schmidt
    • 1
  1. 1.Philosophy DepartmentSaarland UniversitySaarbrückenGermany

Personalised recommendations