David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (1):176-199 (2007)
There is a traditional conception of sensory experience on which the experiences one has looking at, say, a cat could be had by someone merely hallucinating a cat. Disjunctivists take issue with this conception on the grounds that it does not enable us to understand how perceptual knowledge is possible. In particular, they think, it does not explain how it can be that experiences gained in perception enable us to be in ‘cognitive contact’ with objects and facts. I develop this chal- lenge to the traditional conception and then show that it is possible to accommo- date an adequate account of cognitive contact in keeping with the traditional conception. One upshot of the discussion is that experiences do not bear the explanatory burden placed upon them by disjunctivists
|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
Timothy Williamson (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford University Press.
Jerry A. Fodor (1987). Psychosemantics: The Problem of Meaning in the Philosophy of Mind. MIT Press.
John Searle (1983). Intentionality. Oxford University Press.
Gareth Evans (1982). Varieties of Reference. Oxford University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Matthew Kennedy (2009). Heirs of Nothing: The Implications of Transparency. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 79 (3):574-604.
Duncan Pritchard (2011). Epistemological Disjunctivism and the Basis Problem. Philosophical Issues 21 (1):434-455.
Adrian Haddock (2011). The Disjunctive Conception of Perceiving. Philosophical Explorations 14 (1):23-42.
Marc Champagne (2015). Disjunctivism and the Ethics of Disbelief. Philosophical Papers 44 (2):139-163.
Alan Millar (2014). Reasons for Belief, Perception, and Reflective Knowledge. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 88 (1):1-19.
Similar books and articles
William C. Fish (2005). Disjunctivism and Non-Disjunctivism: Making Sense of the Debate. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 105 (1):119-127.
Fiona Macpherson (2010). A Disjunctive Theory of Introspection: A Reflection on Zombies and Anton's Syndrome. Philosophical Issues 20 (1):226-265.
Berit Brogaard (2010). Disjunctivism. Oxford Annotated Bibliographies Online.
William Fish, Disjunctivism. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
M. D. Conduct (2011). Naïve Realism and Extreme Disjunctivism. Philosophical Explorations 13 (3):201-221.
Jesús Vega-Encabo (2010). Hallucinations for Disjunctivists. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 9 (2):281-293.
Alan Millar (2008). Disjunctivism and Skepticism. In John Greco (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism. Oxford University Press
Michael G. F. Martin (2006). On Being Alienated. In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Perceptual Experience. Oxford University Press
Alan Millar (2008). Perceptual-Recognitional Abilities and Perceptual Knowledge. In Adrian Haddock & Fiona Macpherson (eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford University Press 330--47.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads361 ( #2,855 of 1,780,775 )
Recent downloads (6 months)230 ( #1,433 of 1,780,775 )
How can I increase my downloads?