David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
European Journal of Philosophy 19 (3):408-430 (2011)
Abstract: In this paper I consider recent attempts to establish that the geometry of visual experience is a spherical geometry. These attempts, offered by Gideon Yaffe, James van Cleve and Gordon Belot, follow Thomas Reid in arguing for an equivalency of a geometry of ‘visibles’ and spherical geometry. I argue that although the proposed equivalency is successfully established by the strongest form of the argument, this does not warrant any conclusion about the geometry of visual experience. I argue, firstly, that the resistance of this contemporary argument to empirical considerations counts against its plausibility. Moreover, I argue that the contemporary approach provides no compelling reason for supposing that the geometry offered as the geometry of ‘visibles’ is the correct geometrical description of visual experience
|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
Rebecca Copenhaver (2004). A Realism for Reid: Mediated but Direct. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 12 (1):61 – 74.
Thomas Reid & Derek R. Brookes (1997). An Inquiry Into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense : A Critical Edition. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
Patrick A. Heelan (1983). Space-Perception And The Philosophy Of Science. University Of California Press.
P. F. Strawson (1975). The Bounds of Sense: An Essay on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason. Distributed by Harper & Row, Barnes & Noble Import Division.
Jonathan Francis Bennett (1966). Kant's Analytic. London, Cambridge U.P..
Citations of this work BETA
Similar books and articles
Farid Masrour (2015). The Geometry of Visual Space and the Nature of Visual Experience. Philosophical Studies 172 (7):1813-1832.
René Jagnow (2006). Edmund Husserl on the Applicability of Formal Geometry. In Emily Carson & Renate Huber (eds.), Intuition and the Axiomatic Method. Springer 67--85.
Robert French (1987). The Geometry of Visual Space. Noûs 21 (June):115-133.
Amit Hagar (2002). Thomas Reid and Non-Euclidean Geometry. Reid Studies 5 (2):54-64.
Rene Jagnow (2003). Geometry and Spatial Intuition: A Genetic Approach. Dissertation, Mcgill University (Canada)
Gideon Yaffe (2002). Reconsidering Reid's Geometry of Visibles. Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):602-620.
Norman Daniels (1974). Thomas Reid's Inquiry: The Geometry of Visibles and the Case for Realism. New York,B. Franklin.
Norman Daniels (1972). Thomas Reid's Discovery of a Non-Euclidean Geometry. Philosophy of Science 39 (2):219-234.
E. Slowik (2003). Conventionalism in Reid's 'Geometry of Visibles'. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (3):467-489.
Gordon Belot (2003). Remarks on the Geometry of Visibles. Philosophical Quarterly 53 (213):581–586.
Added to index2009-10-22
Total downloads48 ( #83,692 of 1,789,829 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #315,587 of 1,789,829 )
How can I increase my downloads?