Online research in philosophy

Touch requires that one move in concert with one's tactile object. This provokes the question how joint movement of this sort yields perception of tactile qualities of the object vs. tactile qualities of an object-augmented body. Phenomenological analysis together with results of dynamic systems theory (in psychology) suggest that the difference stems from 'resonant' vs. 'reverberant' modalities of body-object movement. The further suggestion is that tactile movement is itself a form of discriminative intelligence, and that the peculiar intimacy of touch and movement can shed light on a general role of movement in perception, subject-object relations, and intelligence.

In this paper I have tried to clarify the meaning of two very different sets of characteristics which philosophers have had in mind when they claimed that ethical terms were objective. I gave a very tentative answer to the question whether it is true to say that, in any of the distinguished senses, ethical statements are objective. Lastly, I indicated how the failure to make the distinction I draw was responsible for a number of confusions and unnecessary difficulties. More precisely, in (1) I defined the first set of the characteristics in question, which together I have called solidity ; in (2) I give reasons why it is misleading to claim that ethical statements are solid and also misleading to claim they are not; in (3) I defined the second set of these characteristics, namely, proper contentiousness and proper complexity; in (4) I explained what I thought were the fundamental differences between these two sets of characteristics; in (5) I suggested that the solidity of an expression is normally a good reason for holding that the expression is properly contentious and properly complex; in (6) I claim that the failure to understand (4) and, therefore, also (5) leads to the following errors: (a) that, if an expression is solid , it must be properly contentious and properly complex ; that, if an expression is non-solid , it must be either properly contentious and properly simple , or properly non-contentious . (5) That, if an expression is properly contentious and properly complex , it must be solid ; if it is properly contentious and properly simple or if it is properly non-contentious , then it must be non-solid ; and lastly in (7) I have mentioned some common reasons for holding that ethical expressions have one or the other of the above-mentioned characteristics.

The doctrine of primary qualities is commonly explained as science's return to a former ideal of mathematical intelligibility and as a sacrifice of the notion that we can be certain about what we perceive. According to the standard chronicle modern scientific explanations appeal to geometrically intelligible, yet theoretically imperceptible, particles. This thesis gains plausibility only by suppressing the role of physiological optics in the development of modern science. Descartes presented an original and significant theory of scientific observation in his Dioptrics; according to which, correct perceptual judgments can be made about the spatial qualities of any body, even about bodies so small as to be imperceptible under ordinary circumstances. This theory insured the perceptual accessibility of the spatial qualities of minute bodies but failed, as Locke discovered upon adding solidity to the list of primary qualities, to explain access to non-spatial qualities. As a result of the failure of Descartes' theory of perception to give an adequate account of scientific observation, Locke took the position that solidity or impenetrability cannot ordinarily be perceived, but rather that it can be and is regularly detected by experiment. This Lockean shift from direct perceivability of spatial qualities to the experimental detection of "new" primary qualities marks an important step in the methodological development of early modern science.

ABSTRACT: Quassim Cassam (1997) accepts the standard account of solidity, according to which, if S feels x as solid, then S feels x as an imediment to his movement. Recently, Martin Fricke and Paul Snowdon (2003) have presented a battery of counter-examples designed to show that S may feel x as solid and as exerting a pressure that supports or facilitates his movement. In this note, I defend the standard account against Fricke and Snowdon’s attack. Integral to this defense is a distinction between two (sometimes overlapping) ways in which S may feel x as an impediment to his movement: as an influence on a movement state of S, or as an obstacle to the achievement of a goal that requires movement. After demonstrating the primacy of the former sense, I argue that Fricke and Snowdon’s counter-examples only undermine a version of the standard account that glosses ‘impediment’ as an obstacle to the achievement of a goal that requires movement.