David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Inquiry 50 (4):352 – 365 (2007)
McDowell's claim that "in mature human beings, embodied coping is permeated with mindedness",1 suggests a new version of the mentalist myth which, like the others, is untrue to the phenomenon. The phenomena show that embodied skills, when we are fully absorbed in enacting them, have a kind of non-mental content that is non-conceptual, non-propositional, non-rational and non-linguistic. This is not to deny that we can monitor our activity while performing it. For solving problems, learning a new skill, receiving coaching, and so forth, such monitoring is invaluable. But monitoring what we are doing as we are doing it degrades performance to at best competence. On McDowell's view, there is no way to account for such a degradation in performance since the same sort of content would be involved whether we were fully absorbed in or paying attention to what we were doing. McDowell claims that it is an advantage of his conceptualism that it avoids any foundationalist attempt to build up the objective world on the basis of an indubitable Given or any other ground-floor experience. And, indeed, if the world is all that is the case and our minds are unproblematically open to it, all experience is on the same footing. But one must distinguish motor intentionality, and the interrelated solicitations our coping body is intertwined with, from conceptual intentionality and the world of propositional structures it opens onto. The existential phenomenologist can then agree with McDowell in rejecting traditional foundationalisms, while yet affirming and describing the ground-floor role of motor intentionality in providing the support on which all forms of conceptual intentionality are based.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Erik Rietveld (2010). McDowell and Dreyfus on Unreflective Action. Inquiry 53 (2):183-207.
Barbara Montero (2010). Does Bodily Awareness Interfere with Highly Skilled Movement? Inquiry 53 (2):105 – 122.
Gabriel Gottlieb (2011). Unreflective Action and the Argument From Speed. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 92 (3):338-362.
Nigel DeSouza (2013). Pre-Reflective Ethical Know-How. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (2):279-294.
Steven Levine (2012). Norms and Habits: Brandom on the Sociality of Action. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (2):n/a-n/a.
Similar books and articles
Michael D. Barber (2008). Holism and Horizon: Husserl and McDowell on Non-Conceptual Content. [REVIEW] Husserl Studies 24 (2):79-97.
Simone Gozzano (2008). In Defence of Non-Conceptual Content. Axiomathes 18 (1):117-126.
Anders Nes (2008). Are Only Mental Phenomena Intentional? Analysis 68 (299):205–215.
Hubert L. Dreyfus (2000). A Merleau-Pontyian Critique of Husserl's and Searle's Representationalist Accounts of Action. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 100 (3):287–302.
Daniel Bonevac (2002). Sellars Vs. The Given. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (1):1-30.
Joseph T. Rouse (2005). Mind, Body, and World: Todes and McDowell on Bodies and Language. Inquiry 48 (1):38-61.
John Mcdowell (2007). What Myth? Inquiry 50 (4):338 – 351.
Refeng Tang (2010). Conceptualism and the New Myth of the Given. Synthese 175 (1):101 - 122.
Steven Hendley (2010). Answerable to the World: Experience and Practical Intentionality in Brandom's and McDowell's "Intramural" Debate. Theoria 76 (2):129-151.
Hubert L. Dreyfus (2006). Overcoming the Myth of the Mental. Topoi 25 (1-2):43-49.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads197 ( #3,513 of 1,140,334 )
Recent downloads (6 months)12 ( #16,833 of 1,140,334 )
How can I increase my downloads?