Explanatory Phenomenal naïve realism must be non-objectivist
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31977/grirfi.v24i1.3572Palavras-chave:
Naïve Realism; Phenomenal Character; Sensory Perception; Acquaintance; Selectivism.Resumo
This study focuses on a particular type of Naïve Realism known as objectivism, which suggests that the explanation of perceptual phenomenology is based on environmental things that the subject becomes acquainted with. Section 2 introduces a subtype of objectivism, “selectivism”, which aims to overcome a traditional kind of objection. However, this section highlights that the cases these objections invoke may still posit challenges (demands for explanations) to selectivism. Section 3 discusses a recent objection to objectivism and demonstrates how it can be addressed by selectivism so becomes only a challenge of this kind. However, it is important to note that, despite not providing positive refutations, these challenges are still significant. Sections 4 and 5 present the main contribution of this study, as they provide novel arguments that conclusively refute objectivism. Section 4 presents an argument that shows the falsity of objectivism as it has been presented in the literature. Nevertheless, a modified version of objectivism is proposed that could address it, although it still faces some non-definitive challenges. This reformulated theory is a novel type within the realm of Naïve Realism as a whole, as it posits that perceptions involve acquaintance with facts relative to sense organs. In contrast, Section 5 proposes an argument that positively refutes objectivism, which cannot be salvaged by any modification. Section 6 raises objections to an alternative option of Naïve Realism and, also based on the issues raised earlier in the article regarding objectivism, concludes that Naïve Realism must be subjectivist.
Downloads
Referências
ALLEN, K. Blur. Philosophical Studies, v. 162, p. 257–273, 2013.
ARMSTRONG, D. Bodily Sensations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1962.
ARMSTRONG, D. A Materialist Theory of the Mind. New York: Humanities Press, 1968.
AUDI, P. Grounding: Toward a Theory of the In-Virtue-Of Relation. Journal of Philosophy, v. 109, p. 685-711, 2012a.
AUDI, P. A clarification and defense of the notion of grounding. In: CORREIA, F.; SCHNIEDER, B. (Eds.). Metaphysical Grounding: Understanding the Structure of Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012b. p. 101-121, 2012b.
AYER, A. The Problem of Knowledge. Middlesex: Penguin, 1956.
BECK, O. Rethinking naive realism. Philosophical Studies, v. 176, p. 607-633, 2019.
BREWER, B. Perception and its objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
BREWER, B. Attention and Direct Realism. Analytic Philosophy, v. 54, p. 421–435, 2013.
BURGE, T. Disjunctivism and Perceptual Psychology. Philosophical Topics, v. 33, p. 1–78, 2005.
BURGE, T. Disjunctivism again. Philosophical Explorations, v. 14, p. 43-80, 2011.
BYRNE, A. DON’T PANIC: Tye’s Intentionalist Theory of Consciousness. In: A Field Guide to the Philosophy of Mind symposium on Tye’s Consciousness, Color, and Content, 2002.
BYRNE, A. & HILBERT, R. Colors and reflectances. In BYRNE, A. & HILBERT R. (Eds.). Readings on color. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997.
CARRASCO, M., LING, S. & READ, S. Attention alters appearance. Nature Neuroscience, v. 7, p. 308–313, 2004.
CASSAM, Q. Berkeley’s Puzzle. In CAMPBELL, J. & CASSAM, Q. (Eds.). Berkeley’s Puzzle: What Does Experience Teach Us? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. p. 99-117.
CAMPBELL, J. Reference and consciousness. Oxford University Press, 2002.
CAMPBELL, J. Consciousness and reference. In MCLAUGHLIN, B., BECKERMANN, A. & WALTER, S. (Eds.). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. p. 648–662.
CAMPBELL, J. Relational vs. Kantian responses to Berkeley’s puzzle. In: ROESSLER, J., LERMAN, H. & EILAN, N. (Eds.). Perception, causation, and objectivity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. p. 35–50.
CAMPBELL, J. The problem of spatiality for a relational view of experience. Philosophical Topics, v. 44, p. 105–120, 2016.
CHALMERS, D. Perception and the Fall from Eden. In GENDLER, S. & HAWTHORNE, J. (Eds.). Perceptual Experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006. p. 49–125.
CLARK, A & CHALMERS, D. The Extended Mind. Analysis, v. 58, p. 7-19, 1998.
CLARKE, S & ANAYA, A. Naïve realism and phenomenal similarity. Inquiry, 2019. DOI: 10.1080/0020174X.2019.1688183.
COHEN, J. Color Properties and Color Ascriptions: A Relationalist Manifesto. Philosophical Review, v. 113, p. 451–506.
COLE, D. Functionalism and inverted spectra. Synthese, v. 82, p. 207-22, 1990.
CRANE, T. Is There a Perceptual Relation? In: GENDLER, S & HAWTHORNE, J (Eds.). Perceptual Experiences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 126–146.
CHRISTY, J. Naïve realism: a simple approach. Philosophical Studies, 176, 2167-2185, 2019.
ELLIS, B. Scientific Essentialism. Cambridge University Press, 2001.
FISH, W. Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion. Oxford University Press, 2009.
GENONE, J. Recent Work on Naive Realism. American Philosophical Quarterly, 53, 1-25, 2016.
GIBSON, J. The Senses Considered as Perceptual Systems. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1966.
FRENCH, C. Naive Realist Perspectives on Seeing Blurrily. Ratio, 27, 393–413, 2014.
FRENCH, C., & A. GOMES. On the Particularity of Experience. Philosophical Studies, 173, 451–460, 2016.
FRENCH, C., & A. GOMES. How Naïve Realism Can Explain Both the Particularity and the Generality of Experience. The Philosophical Quarterly, 69, 41–63, 2019.
HILL, C. Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
JACKSON, Frank. Perception: A Representative Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977.
KENNEDY, M. Explanation in Good and Bad Experiential Cases. In: MACPHERSON, F & PLATCHIAS, D (Eds.). Hallucination: Philosophy and Psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2013. p. 221-254.
LANGSAM, H. The intuitive case for naïve realism. Philosophical Explorations, 20, 106-122, 2017.
LOGUE, H. Why naïve realism? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 112, 211–237, 2012.
LOGUE, H. Experiential Content and Naïve Realism: A Reconciliation. In: BROGAARD, B (Ed.). Does Perception Have Content? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. p. 220–241.
MACK, A., & I. ROCK. Inattentional Blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
MARTIN, M. The Transparency of Experience. Mind & Language, 17 (1), 376-425, 2002.
MARTIN, M. On being alienated. In: GENDLER, T & HAWTHORNE, J (Eds.). Perceptual Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 354-410.
MCDOWELL, J. Criteria, defeasibility, and knowledge. Proceedings of the British Academy, 68, 455–479, 1982.
MCDOWELL, J. The Disjunctive Conception of Experience as Material for a Transcendental Argument. In: HADDOCK, A, & MACPHERSON, F (Eds.). Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. p. 35-56.
MEHTA, N. The Limited Role of Particulars in Phenomenal Experience. Journal of Philosophy, 111, 311–331, 2014.
MEHTA, N. & T. GANSON. On the Generality of Experience: A Reply to French and Gomes. Philosophical Studies, 173, 3223–3229, 2016.
MILLAR, B. Naïve Realism and Illusion. Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy, 2, 607–625, 2015.
NEWEN, A, DE BRUIN, L & GALLAGHER, S (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of 4E Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
NOË, A. Action in Perception. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004.
NUDDS, M. Recent Work in Perception: Naïve Realism and its Opponents. Analysis, 69, 334–346, 2009.
PACE, M. Blurred Vision and the Transparency of Experience. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 88, 328–354, 2007.
PEACOCKE, C. A study of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1992.
PITCHER, G. Pain Perception. The Philosophical Review, 79, 368–393, 1970.
PITCHER, G. A Theory of Perception. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1971.
PRICE, H. Perception. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd., 1950.
RAINERI, C. What’s so naïve about naïve realism? Philosophical Studies, 178, 3637-3657, 2021.
RALEIGH, T. Introduction. In: KNOWLES, J & RALEIGH, T. (Eds.) Acquaintance: New Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019. p. 1-30.
SHOEMAKER, S. Phenomenal character. Noûs, 28, 21-38, 1994.
SHOEMAKER, S. On the Way Things Appear. In: HAWTHORNE, J (Ed.). Perceptual Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. p. 461-480.
SIMONS, D. & CHABRIS, C. Gorillas in Our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness for Dynamic Events. Perception, 28, 1059–1074, 199
SMITH, A. The Problem of Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
SOTERIOU, M. Perceiving Events. Philosophical Explorations, 13, 223–241, 2010.
SOTERIOU, M. The Mind’s Construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
SOTERIOU, M. Disjunctivism. London: Routledge, 2016.
THAU, M. Consciousness and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
ZIĘBA, P. Naïve realism about unconscious perception. Synthese, 196, 2045-2073, 2019.
Downloads
Publicado
Como Citar
Edição
Seção
Licença
Copyright (c) 2024 Ícaro Miguel Ibiapina Machado
Este trabalho está licenciado sob uma licença Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Os autores que publicam na Griot : Revista de Filosofia mantém os direitos autorais e concedem à revista o direito de primeira publicação, com o trabalho simultaneamente licenciado sob a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, permitindo compartilhamento e adaptação, mesmo para fins comerciais, com o devido reconhecimento da autoria e publicação inicial nesta revista. Leia mais...
