David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
European Journal of Philosophy 20 (4):575-597 (2012)
Abstract: Some propose that the question of how you know that James is angry can be adequately answered with the claim that you see that James is angry. Call this the Perceptual Hypothesis. Here, I examine that hypothesis. I argue that there are two different ways in which the Perceptual Hypothesis could be made true. You might see that James is angry by seeing his bodily features. Alternatively, you might see that James is angry by seeing his anger. If you see that James is angry in the first way, your knowledge is inferential. If you see that James is angry in the second way, your knowledge is not inferential. These are different ways of knowing that James is angry. So the Perceptual Hypothesis alone does not adequately answer the question of how you know that fact. To ascertain how you know it, we need to decide whether or not you saw his anger. This is an epistemological argument. But it has consequences for a theory of perception. It implies that there is a determinate fact about which features of an object you see. This fact is made true independently of what you come to know by seeing. In the final section of the paper, I seek to undermine various ways in which the claim that you see James' anger may be thought implausible.
|Keywords||other minds perception knowledge epistemic seeing non-epistemic seeing Dretske anger seeing cassam inference|
|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
Paul M. Churchland (1981). Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes. Journal of Philosophy 78 (February):67-90.
James Pryor (2000). The Skeptic and the Dogmatist. Noûs 34 (4):517–549.
Charles S. Travis (2004). The Silence of the Senses. Mind 113 (449):57-94.
Citations of this work BETA
Dan Zahavi (2011). Empathy and Direct Social Perception: A Phenomenological Proposal. [REVIEW] Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2 (3):541-558.
Joel Krueger (2012). Seeing Mind in Action. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 11 (2):149-173.
Shannon Spaulding (2015). On Direct Social Perception. Consciousness and Cognition 36:472-482.
Mitchell Herschbach (2015). Direct Social Perception and Dual Process Theories of Mindreading. Consciousness and Cognition 36:483-497.
Joel Smith (2013). The Phenomenology of Face‐to‐Face Mindreading. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 87 (2):274-293.
Similar books and articles
Douglas James McDermid (2001). What is Direct Perceptual Knowledge? A Fivefold Confusion. Grazer Philosophische Studien 62 (1):1-16.
Michael Tye (2008). The Experience of Emotion: An Intentionalist Theory. Revue Internationale de Philosophie 62:25--50.
A. D. Smith (2001). Perception and Belief. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (2):283-309.
Anna Stone & Tim Valentine (2007). Angry and Happy Faces Perceived Without Awareness: A Comparison with the Affective Impact of Masked Famous Faces. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology 19 (2):161-186.
Stephen R. Leighton (1988). On Feeling Angry and Elated. Journal of Philosophy 85 (May):253-264.
William Fish (2005). Emotions, Moods, and Intentionality. In Intentionality: Past and Future (Value Inquiry Book Series, Volume 173). Rodopi NY
Peter Vernezze (2008). Moderation or the Middle Way: Two Approaches to Anger. Philosophy East and West 58 (1):2-16.
Patricia White (2012). Making Political Anger Possible: A Task for Civic Education. Journal of Philosophy of Education 46 (1):1-13.
William E. S. McNeill (2012). Embodiment and the Perceptual Hypothesis. Philosophical Quarterly 62 (247):569 - 591.
Added to index2010-04-22
Total downloads274 ( #3,237 of 1,725,611 )
Recent downloads (6 months)19 ( #43,227 of 1,725,611 )
How can I increase my downloads?