Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T03:30:03.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Locke’s answer to Molyneux’s question inconsistent? Cross-modal recognition and the sight–recognition error

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Anna Vaughn
Anna Vaughn*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Theology, and Religious Studies, Sacred Heart University, Fairfield, CT, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Molyneux’s question asks whether someone born blind, who could distinguish cubes from spheres using his tactile sensation, could recognize those objects if he received his sight. Locke says no: the newly sighted person would fail to point to the cube and call it a cube. Locke never provided a complete explanation for his negative response, and there are concerns of inconsistency with other important aspects of his theory of ideas. These charges of inconsistency rest upon an unrecognized and unfounded assumption that seeing entails recognition. Locke’s negative answer to Molyneux’s question is consistent with his other philosophical commitments.

Keywords

Lockeperceptioncross-modal recognitionMolyneux’s question
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 49 , Issue 5 , August 2019 , pp. 670 - 688
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Philosophy 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ayers, M., 1991. Locke. 1: Epistemology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ayers, M., 1998. “Ideas and Objective Being.” In The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy, edited by Garber, D. and Ayers, M., 1062–1107. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bennett, J., 1971. Locke, Berkeley, and Hume: Central Themes. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Berchielli, L., 2002. “Color, Space and Figure in Locke: An Interpretation of the Molyneux Problem.” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 40: 47–65.Google Scholar
Bolton, M. B., 1994. “The Real Molyneux Question and the Basis of Locke’s Answer.” In Locke’s Philosophy: Content and Context, edited by Rogers, G. A. J., 75–99. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bruno, M., and Mandelbaum, E.. 2010. “Locke’s Answer to Molyneux’s Thought Experiment.” History of Philosophy Quarterly, 27 (2): 165–180.Google Scholar
Chisholm, R., 1957. Perceiving: A Philosophical Study. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Dancy, J., 1987. Berkeley: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Degenaar, M., and Lokhorst, G.-J.. 2014. “Molyneux’s Problem.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), edited by Zalta, Edward N.. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/molyneux-problem/.Google Scholar
Dretske, F., 1969. Seeing and Knowing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, F., 1993. “Conscious Experience.” Mind, 102 (406): 263–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F., 2003. “Experience as Representation.” Philosophical Issues, 13 (1): 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glenney, B., 2012. “Molyneux’s Question.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ISSN. ISSN 2161-0002. http://www.iep.utm.edu/molyneux.Google Scholar
Hatfield, G., 1998. “The Cognitive Faculties.” The Cambridge History of Seventeenth-Century Philosophy II, edited by Garber, D. and Ayers, M., 953–1002. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hopkins, R. 2005. “Molyneux’s Question.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 35 (3): 441–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laurence, S., and Margolis, E.. 2012. “Abstraction and the Origin or General Ideas.” Philosophers’ Imprint, 12 (19): 1–22.Google Scholar
Lievers, M., 1992. “The Molyneux Problem.” Journal of the History of Philosophy, 30 (3): 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeb, L., 1981. From Descartes to Hume: Continental Metaphysics and the Development of Modern Philosophy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, E. J., 1995. Locke on Human Understanding. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jacovides, M., 1999. “Locke’s Resemblance Theses.” The Philosophical Review, 108 (4): 461–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jolley, N., 1999. Locke: His Philosophical Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mackie, J. L., 1976. Problems from Locke. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, E., 2011. “Primary Primary Qualities and Secondary Primary Qualities.” In Primary and Secondary Qualities, edited by Nolan, L., 158–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, M. J., 1977. Molyneux’s Question: Vision, Touch and the Philosophy of Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newman, L., 2007. “Locke on Knowledge.” In The Cambridge Companion to “Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, edited by Newman, L., 313–351. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ott, W., 2004. Locke’s Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Owen, D., 1999. Hume’s Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rickless, S., 2014. Locke. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, R., 2003. “What Are the Direct Objects of Sight? Locke on the Molyneux Question.” Locke Studies, 3: 41–62.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. C. W., 1978. “Berkeley’s Theory of Abstract Ideas.” Philosophical Quarterly, 28 III: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walmsley, J., 1999. “Locke on Abstraction: A Response to M. R. Ayers.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 7: 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S., 2015. “Locke on Knowing Our Own Ideas (and Ourselves).” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 97: 347–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinberg, S., 2016. Consciousness in Locke. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, K., 1989. Berkeley: An Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L., 1953. The Blue and Brown Books. Translated by Rhees, R.. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar