Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:44:57.378Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Singular Relational plus Relativistic Content View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 September 2017

ROBERTO HORÁCIO DE SÁ PEREIRA
ROBERTO HORÁCIO DE SÁ PEREIRA*
Affiliation:
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro
*
*<[email protected]>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

My aim is to defend a peculiar epistemic version of the particularity thesis, which results from a sui generis combination of what I call the ‘singular relational view’ and what I call the ‘relativistic content view.’ Particulars are not represented as part of putative singular content. Instead, we are perceptually acquainted with them in the relevant sense that experience puts us in direct perceptual contact with them. And the content of experience is best modelled as a propositional function, that is, the content of a complex predicate that is true or false only relative to some circumstances of evaluation.

Mon objectif est de défendre une version épistémique de la thèse de la particularité qui résulte d’une combinaison sui generis de ce que j’appelle la «vision relationnelle singulière» et de ce que j’appelle la «vision relativiste du contenu». Les particularités ne sont pas représentées dans le supposé contenu singulier. Au lieu de cela, nous les connaissons de manière perceptive dans le sens pertinent où l’expérience nous met en contact perceptuel direct avec elles. Le contenu de l’expérience est le contenu d’un prédicat complexe qui est vrai ou faux seulement par rapport à certaines circonstances d’évaluation.

Keywords

content viewrelational viewparticularity of experiencerelativistic contentacquaintance relations
Type
Original Article/Article original
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , March 2018 , pp. 93 - 114
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2017 

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

Anscombe, G.E.M. 1965 “The Intentionality of Sensation: A Grammatical Feature.” In Analytical Philosophy: Second Series, edited by Butler, R.J.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Armstrong, D. 1968 A Materialist Theory of Mind. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Austin, J.L. 1962 Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bach, K. 1987 Thought and Reference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bermúdez, J.L. 2007 “What Is at Stake in the Debate on Nonconceptual Content?” Philosophical Perspectives 21 (1): 55–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, B. 2006 “Perception and Content.” European Journal of Philosophy 14 (2): 165–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burge, T. 1991 “Vision and Intentional Content.” In John Searle and His Critics, edited by Lepore, E. and van Gulick, R.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell: 195–234.Google Scholar
Burge, T. 2010 The Origins of Objectivity. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Byrne, A. 2001 “Intentionalism Defended.” Philosophical Review 110 (2): 199–240.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. 2002 Reference and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chalmers, D. 2010 The Character of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crane, T. 2011 “The Singularity of Singular Thought.” Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 85 (1): 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. 1992 “Perceptual Content and Local Supervenience.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 92 (1): 21–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, F. 1969 Seeing and Knowing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 1995 Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Dretske, F. 2004 “Change Blindness.” Philosophical Studies 120 (1–3): 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, G. 1982 The Varieties of Reference. Edited by McDowell, J.. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fish, W. 2009 Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garcia-Carpintero, M. 2010 “Fictional Singular Imaginings.” In New Essays on Singular Thought, edited by Jeshion, R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 273–299.Google Scholar
Genone, J. 2014 “Appearance and Illusion.” Mind 123 (490): 339–376.Google Scholar
Grice, H.P., and White, A.R. 1961 “The Causal Theory of Perception.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 35: 121–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. 1990 “The Intrinsic Quality of Experience.” Philosophical Perspectives 4: 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hill, C. 2009 Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, F. 1977 Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, M. 2004 “The Obscure Object of Hallucination.” Philosophical Studies 120 (1–3): 113–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, M. 2006 “Better than Mere Knowledge? The Function of Sensory Awareness.” In Perceptual Experience, edited by Gendler, T.S. and Hawthorne, J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 260–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D. 1980a “Veridical Hallucination and Prosthetic Vision.” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 58 (3): 239–249.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1980b “Index, Context, and Content.” In Philosophy and Grammar, edited by Kanger, S. and Öhman, S.. 79–100.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. 1983 “Individuation by Acquaintance and by Stipulation.” Philosophical Review 92 (1): 3–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M.G.F. 2002 “Particular Thoughts and Singular Thought.” Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement 51: 173–214.Google Scholar
Martin, M.G.F. 2004 “The Limits of Self-Awareness.” Philosophical Studies 120 (1–3): 37–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, M.G.F. 2006 “On Being Alienated.” In Perceptual Experience, edited by Gendler, T. and Hawthorne, J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 354–410.Google Scholar
McGinn, C. 1982 The Character of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Millar, A. 1991 Reasons and Experiences. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Peacocke, C. 1983 Sense and Content: Experience, Thought, and their Relations. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pitcher, G. 1970 “Pain Perception.” Philosophical Review 79 (3): 368–393.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 1993 Direct Reference: From Language to Thought. London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. 2007 Perspectival Thought: A Plea for Moderate Relativism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russell, B. 1912 The Problems of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, S. 2010 “The Particularity and Phenomenology of Perceptual Experience.” Philosophical Studies 149 (1): 19–48.Google Scholar
Schellenberg, S. 2016 “Perceptual Particularity.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 93 (1): 25–54.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 1983 Intentionality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Searle, J. 2015 Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Speaks, J. 2011 “Frege’s Puzzle and Descriptive Enrichment.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2): 267–282.Google Scholar
Speaks, J. 2014 Transparency and Availability: An Essay in the Philosophy of Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Siewert, C. 1998 The Significance of Consciousness. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Soteriou, M. 2000 “The Particularity of Visual Perception.” European Journal of Philosophy 8 (2): 173–189.Google Scholar
Travis, C. 2004 “The Silence of the Senses.” Mind 113 (449): 57–94.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 1995 Ten Problems of Consciousness: A Representational Theory of the Phenomenal Mind. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tye, M. 2009 Consciousness Revisited: Materialism without Phenomenal Concepts. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 2014 “Speaks on Strong Property Representationalism.” Philosophical Studies 170 (1): 85–86.Google Scholar
Tye, M. 2014 “What is the Content of a Hallucinatory Experience?” In Does Perception have Content?, edited by Brogaard, B.. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 291–310.Google Scholar