David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2):305-328 (2000)
This paper contrasts three different positions taken by 18th century British scholars on how sensations, particularly sensations of colour and touch, come to be localized in space: Berkeley’s view that we learn to localize ideas of colour by associating certain purely qualitative features of those ideas with ideas of touch and motion, Hume’s view that visual and tangible impressions are originally disposed in space, and Reid’s view that we are innately disposed to refer appearances of colour to the end of a line passing through the centre of the eye and originating from the spot on the back of the retina where the material impression causing that appearance was received. Reid’s reasons for rejecting the Berkeleian and Humean views are examined. It is argued that Reid’s position on visual localization is ultimately driven by his dualistic metaphysical commitments rather than by an empirically grounded investigation of the phenomena of vision. To this extent, his position sits uncomfortably with his own methodological commitments
|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
Giovanni B. Grandi (2005). Thomas Reid's Geometry of Visibles and the Parallel Postulate. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36 (1):79-103.
Similar books and articles
Jennifer McKitrick (2002). Reid's Foundation for the Primary/Secondary Quality Distinction. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):478-494.
Robert Hopkins (2005). Thomas Reid on Molyneux's Question. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (3):340-364.
Norman Daniels (1972). Thomas Reid's Discovery of a Non-Euclidean Geometry. Philosophy of Science 39 (2):219-234.
Lorne Falkenstein & Giovanni B. Grandi (2003). The Role of Material Impressions in Reid's Theory of Vision: A Critique of Gideon Yaffe's “Reid on the Perception of the Visible Figure”. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 1 (2):117-133.
David H. Sanford (1983). The Perception of Shape. In Carl Ginet & Sydney Shoemaker (eds.), Knowledge And Mind: Phil Essays. Oxford University Press.
Xiangdong Xu (2011). Thomas Reid on Active Power and Free Agency. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 6 (3):369-389.
Lorne Falkenstein (2005). Condillac's Paradox. Journal of the History of Philosophy 43 (4):403-435.
Amit Hagar (2002). Thomas Reid and Non-Euclidean Geometry. Reid Studies 5 (2):54-64.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads12 ( #145,111 of 1,410,463 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #177,872 of 1,410,463 )
How can I increase my downloads?