Abstract
Suppose I tell a friend that the rose bush on my front porch is in bloom. If he wonders how I know such a thing, I might respond that I saw it as I left for work this morning. If pressed, I might invite my friend home so he can see the bush for himself. What is supposed to be served by my report of what I saw? It is supposed to provide justification for what I say by grounding it in what I see. But what does ‘grounding’ mean here? My claim about the rose bush is a claim about an entity in the world, and I assume that looking at such an entity warrants the claim, that perceiving it underwrites the truth of what I say. Sceptics have often questioned this assumption, pointing out that perception can be deceptive in many ways; indeed, we may have no good reason for holding that any perception delivers the world as it is. When I make a judgement, the object about which I judge becomes a standard against which the judgement may be measured: if the object is as I say it is, then my judgement is true (i.e., does what it is supposed to do as this judgement); if not, not.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Barber, M. (2008) ‘Holism and Horizon: Husserl and McDowell on Nonconceptual Content’, Husserl Studies, 24(2), 79–97.
Brandom, R. (1994) Making it Explicit (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Crowell, S. (2007)’Conscience and Reason: Heidegger and the Grounds of Intentionality’, in S. Crowell and J. Malpas (eds) Transcendental Heidegger (Stanford: Stanford University Press).
Crowell, S. (2010) ‘Transcendental Logic and “Minimal Empiricism”: Lask andMcDowell on the Unboundedness of the Conceptual’, in R. Makkreel and S. Luft (eds) Neo- Kantianism in Contemporary Philosophy (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press).
Dahlstrom, D.O. (2007) ‘The Intentionality of Passive Experience: Husserl and a Contemporary Debate’, The New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy, VII, 1–18.
Dreyfus, H. (1999) ‘The Primacy of Phenomenology Over Logical Analysis’, Philosophical Topics, 27(2).
Dreyfus, H. (2000) ‘Response to Searle’, in M. Wrathall and J. Malpas (eds)
Heidegger, Coping, and Cognitive Science. Essays in Honor of Hubert Dreyfus, Vol. 2 (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).
Dreyfus, H. (2007) ‘Why Heideggerian AI Failed and how Fixing it would Require making it more Heideggerian’, Philosophical Psychology, 20(2), 247–68.
Drummond, J. (1979–80)’On Seeing a Material Thing in Space: The Role of Kinaesthesis in Visual Perception’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 40, 19–32.
Drummond, J. (1990) Husserlian Intentionality and Non- Foundational Realism (Dordrecht: Kluwer).
Ginsborg, H. (2006) ‘Aesthetic Judgment and Perceptual Normativity’, Inquiry, 49(5), 403–37.
Hopp, W. (2008) ‘Husserl on Sensation, Perception and Interpretation’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 38(2), 219–46.
Hopp, W.(2008) ‘Conceptualism and the Myth of the Given’, European Journal of Philosophy, 17(3), 363–85.
Husserl, E. (1966) Analysenzurpassiven Synthesis (1918- 1926), Husserliana Bd. XI, M. Fleischer (ed.) (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff).
Husserl, E. (1970) Logical Investigations, trans. J.N. Findlay (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Husserl, E. (1973) Experience and Judgment, trans. J.S. Churchill and K. Ameriks (Evanston: Northwestern University Press).
Husserl, E. (1989) Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological
Philosophy, Second Book, trans. R. Rojcewicz and A. Schuwer (Dordrecht: Kluwer); Ideenzueinerreinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologischen Philosophie, Zweites
Buch, Husserliana Bd. IV, Marly Biemel (ed.) (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff).
Husserl, E. (2004) Wahrnehmung und Aufmerksamkeit: Texte aus dem Nachlass(1893- 1912), Husserliana Bd. XXXVIII, T. Vongehr and R. Giuliani (eds)(Dordrecht: Springer).
Kant, I. (1968) Critique of Pure Reason, trans. N.K. Smith (London: Palgrave Macmillan).
Kelly, S. (2000) The Relevance of Phenomenology to the Philosophy of Language and Mind (New York: Routledge).
Lohmar, D. (2008) Phänomenologie der schwachen Phantasie, Phaenomenologica 185 (Dordrecht: Springer)
McDowell, J. (1994) Mind and World (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
McDowell, J. (2009) ‘Avoiding the Myth of the Given’, Having the World in View: Essays on Kant, Hegel, and Sellars (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Merleau- Ponty, M. (1962)The Phenomenology of Perception, trans. C. Smith (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul).
Mooney, T. (2010) ‘Understanding and Simple Seeing in Husserl’, Husserl Studies, 26(1), 19–48.
Noë, A. (2004) Action in Perception (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press).
Noë, A. (2006) ‘Experience of the World in Time’, Analysis, 66(1).
Rouse, J. (2005) ‘Mind, Body, and World: Todes and McDowell on Bodies and Language’, Inquiry, 48(1), 38–61.
Siewert, C. (2006) ‘Is the Appearance of Shape Protean?’, Psyche, 12(1), 1–16; http://www.theassc.org/vol_12_2006 (last accessed November 23, 2011).
Siewert, C. (forthcoming) ‘Intellectualism, Experience, and Motor Understanding’, in J. Schear (ed.) The Myth of the Mental?
Thompson, E. (2007) Mind in Life (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
Wakefield, J. and Dreyfus, H. (1993) ‘Intentionality and the Phenomenology of
Action’, in E. Lepore and R. van Gulick (eds) John Searle and His Critics (Oxford:
Blackwell).
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2012 Steven Crowell
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Crowell, S. (2012). The Normative in Perception. In: Baiasu, R., Bird, G., Moore, A.W. (eds) Contemporary Kantian Metaphysics. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230358911_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230358911_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32996-0
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-35891-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)