David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophical Studies 139 (1):1 - 28 (2008)
Molyneux's Question, that is, “Suppose a man born blind, and now adult, and taught by his touch to distinguish between a cube and a sphere... and the blind man made to see: Quaere, whether by his sight, before he touched them, he could now distinguish, and tell, which is the globe, which the cube”, was discussed by many theorists in the 17th and 18th centuries, and has recently been addressed by contemporary philosophers interested in the nature, and identity conditions, of perceptual concepts. My main concern in this paper is to argue – against Evans, Campbell, and a number of other contemporary philosophers – that a test of the sort Molyneux envisioned, at least if carefully designed and administered, can indeed be a crucial experiment for the claim that we deploy the same perceptual concepts when identifying shapes by sight and by touch. I will explore some implications of this argument for a theory of recognitional concepts. And I’ll try to trace out some unhappy consequences of various alternative views
|Keywords||Philosophy Philosophy of Religion Philosophy of Mind Epistemology Logic Philosophy|
|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
Fred Dretske (1995). Naturalizing the Mind. MIT Press.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1996). New Essays on Human Understanding. Cambridge University Press.
Michael Martin (1992). Sight and Touch. In Tim Crane (ed.), The Contents of Experience. New York: Cambridge University Press
Cynthia Macdonald (2004). Mary Meets Molyneux: The Explanatory Gap and the Individuation of Phenomenal Concepts. Noûs 38 (3):503-24.
Citations of this work BETA
Brian R. Glenney (2013). Philosophical Problems, Cluster Concepts, and the Many Lives of Molyneux's Question. Biology and Philosophy 28 (3):541-558.
Similar books and articles
Ralph Schumacher (2003). What Are the Direct Objects of Sight? Locke on the Molyneux Question. Locke Studies 3:41-62.
Bradley Rives (2010). Concepts and Perceptual Belief: How (Not) to Defend Recognitional Concepts. Acta Analytica 25 (4):369-391.
Alessandra C. Jacomuzzi, Pietro Kobau & Nicola Bruno (2003). Molyneux's Question Redux. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 2 (4):255-280.
David Papineau (2006). Phenomenal and Perceptual Concepts. In Torin Alter & Sven Walter (eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge: New Essays on Consciousness and Physicalism. Oxford University Press 111--144.
Ned Block (2003). Spatial Perception Via Tactile Sensation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7 (7):285-286.
Robert Hopkins (2005). Molyneux's Question. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (3):441-464.
Janet Levin (2008). Molyneux Meets Euthyphro. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 8 (3):289-297.
Mohan Matthen (2005). Visual Concepts. Philosophical Topics 33 (1):207-233.
Robert Hopkins (2005). Thomas Reid on Molyneux's Question. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (3):340-364.
John Campbell (2005). Information-Processing, Phenomenal Consciousness and Molyneux's Question. In José Luis Bermúdez (ed.), Thought, Reference, and Experience: Themes From the Philosophy of Gareth Evans. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads97 ( #39,166 of 1,789,824 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #196,839 of 1,789,824 )
How can I increase my downloads?