Content, object, and phenomenal character
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2012 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n3p417 |
Resumo: | The view that perceptual experience has representational content, or the content view, has recently been criticized by the defenders of the so-called object view. Part of the dispute, I claim here, is based on a lack of grasp of the notion of content. There is, however, a core of substantial disagreement. Once the substantial core is revealed, I aim to: (1) reject the arguments raised against the content view by Campbell (2002), Travis (2004), and Brewer (2006); (2) criticize Brewer’s (2006, 2007, 2008, 2011) attempts to defend the object view; (3) refine Pautz’ (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) arguments against the object view, which mainly resort to the fact that it cannot account for the grounding role of hallucinatory experiences; (4) and finally adjudicate in favor of the content view and against the overestimation of the naïve intuition. |
id |
UFSC-5_b4623843648275268a9b984bfa5b4c1e |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/28306 |
network_acronym_str |
UFSC-5 |
network_name_str |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Content, object, and phenomenal characterContent, Object, and Phenomenal CharacterThe view that perceptual experience has representational content, or the content view, has recently been criticized by the defenders of the so-called object view. Part of the dispute, I claim here, is based on a lack of grasp of the notion of content. There is, however, a core of substantial disagreement. Once the substantial core is revealed, I aim to: (1) reject the arguments raised against the content view by Campbell (2002), Travis (2004), and Brewer (2006); (2) criticize Brewer’s (2006, 2007, 2008, 2011) attempts to defend the object view; (3) refine Pautz’ (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) arguments against the object view, which mainly resort to the fact that it cannot account for the grounding role of hallucinatory experiences; (4) and finally adjudicate in favor of the content view and against the overestimation of the naïve intuition.A tese de que experiências perceptivas possuem conteúdo representacional, ou a teoria do conteúdo, tem sido alvo dos defensores da chamada teoria do objeto. Parte da disputa, conforme argumento nesse artigo, apóia-se na incompreensão da noção de conteúdo. Mas esse desacordo deve-se também, em parte, a questões substanciais. Uma vez que o núcleo substancial da disputa é trazido à tona, pretendo aqui: (1) rejeitar os argumentos levantados contra a teoria do conteúdo por Campbell (2002), Travis (2004) e Brewer (2006); (2) criticar as tentativas de Brewer (2006, 2007, 2008, 2011) de defender a teoria do objeto; (3) refinar os argumentos de Pautz (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) contra a teoria do objeto, que apelam principalmente para o fato dela não conseguir explicar o papel fundacional das experiências alucinatórias; (4) e finalmente julgar a questão a favor da teoria do conteúdo e contra a superestimação da intuição ingênua.Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC2012-09-23info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n3p41710.5007/1808-1711.2012v16n3p417Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 16 No. 3 (2012); 417-449Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 16 Núm. 3 (2012); 417-449Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 16 n. 3 (2012); 417-4491808-17111414-4247reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCenghttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n3p417/25612Copyright (c) 2021 Marco Aurélio Sousa Alvesinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAlves, Marco Aurélio Sousa2019-09-13T08:40:19Zoai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/28306Revistahttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principiaPUBhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/oaiprincipia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br1808-17111414-4247opendoar:2019-09-13T08:40:19Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Content, object, and phenomenal character Content, Object, and Phenomenal Character |
title |
Content, object, and phenomenal character |
spellingShingle |
Content, object, and phenomenal character Alves, Marco Aurélio Sousa |
title_short |
Content, object, and phenomenal character |
title_full |
Content, object, and phenomenal character |
title_fullStr |
Content, object, and phenomenal character |
title_full_unstemmed |
Content, object, and phenomenal character |
title_sort |
Content, object, and phenomenal character |
author |
Alves, Marco Aurélio Sousa |
author_facet |
Alves, Marco Aurélio Sousa |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Alves, Marco Aurélio Sousa |
description |
The view that perceptual experience has representational content, or the content view, has recently been criticized by the defenders of the so-called object view. Part of the dispute, I claim here, is based on a lack of grasp of the notion of content. There is, however, a core of substantial disagreement. Once the substantial core is revealed, I aim to: (1) reject the arguments raised against the content view by Campbell (2002), Travis (2004), and Brewer (2006); (2) criticize Brewer’s (2006, 2007, 2008, 2011) attempts to defend the object view; (3) refine Pautz’ (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011) arguments against the object view, which mainly resort to the fact that it cannot account for the grounding role of hallucinatory experiences; (4) and finally adjudicate in favor of the content view and against the overestimation of the naïve intuition. |
publishDate |
2012 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2012-09-23 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n3p417 10.5007/1808-1711.2012v16n3p417 |
url |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n3p417 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5007/1808-1711.2012v16n3p417 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1808-1711.2012v16n3p417/25612 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Marco Aurélio Sousa Alves info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Marco Aurélio Sousa Alves |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 16 No. 3 (2012); 417-449 Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 16 Núm. 3 (2012); 417-449 Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 16 n. 3 (2012); 417-449 1808-1711 1414-4247 reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online) instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) instacron:UFSC |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
instacron_str |
UFSC |
institution |
UFSC |
reponame_str |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
collection |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
principia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br |
_version_ |
1789435112524349440 |