Acta Analytica 24 (1):1-10 (2009)
|Abstract||In his latest book, Roy Sorensen offers a solution to a puzzle he put forward in an earlier article -The Disappearing Act. The puzzle involves various question about how the causal theory perception is to be applied to the case of seeing shadows. Sorensen argues that the puzzle should be taken as bringing out a new way of seeing shadows. I point out a problem for Sorensenâs solution, and offer and defend an alternative view, according to which the puzzle is to be interpreted as showing a new way of seeing objects, in virtue of their contrast with light|
|Keywords||causal theory of perception shadows|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Istvan Aranyosi (2007). Shadows of Constitution. The Monist 90 (3):415-431.
Tom Stoneham (2011). Catching Berkeley's Shadow. Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (2):116-136.
István Aranyosi (2010). The Nature of Shadows, From Yale to Bilkent. Philosophy 85 (02):219-.
István Aranyosi (2008). Seeing Dark Things. The Philosophy of Shadows. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (3):513-515.
István Aranyosi (2007). Shadows of Constitution. The Monist 90 (3):415-431.
István Aranyosi (2008). Review of Roy Sorensen's Seeing Dark Things. The Philosophy of Shadows. [REVIEW] Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (3):513-515.
Roy A. Sorensen (2008). Seeing Dark Things: The Philosophy of Shadows. Oxford University Press.
István Aranyosi (2010). The Nature of Shadows, From Yale to Bilkent. Philosophy 85 (2):219-223.
Roy Sorensen (2009). Generalizing the Disappearing Act: A Reply to István Aranyosi. Acta Analytica 24 (1):11-15.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads43 ( #26,147 of 549,065 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #7,720 of 549,065 )
How can I increase my downloads?