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 18 (4):510-538 (2010)
Abstract: The intent of this paper is to indicate a development in Sellars' writings which points in another direction than the interpretations offered by Brandom, McDowell, and A. D. Smith. Brandom and McDowell have long claimed to preserve central insights of Sellars's theory of perception; however, they disagree over what exactly these insights are. A. D. Smith has launched a critique of Sellars in chapter 2 of his book The Problem of Perception which is so penetrating that it would tear Sellars' philosophy of perception apart if it were adequate. However, I try to show firstly that Brandom's and McDowell's interpretations are unsatisfying when Sellars' late writings are taking into consideration. And secondly that we can give another interpretation of Sellars that is not vulnerable to some of the problems of which Smith accuses Sellars
|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
Wilfrid Sellars (1963). Science, Perception, and Reality. New York, Humanities Press.
Bill Brewer (1999). Perception and Reason. Oxford University Press.
A. D. Smith (2002). The Problem of Perception. Harvard University Press.
Michael Williams (2001). Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology. OUP Oxford.
John McDowell (1995). Knowledge and the Internal. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 55 (4):877-93.
Citations of this work BETA
Indrek Reiland (2015). Experience, Seemings, and Evidence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 96 (4):510-534.
Similar books and articles
Willem A. deVries & Paul Coates (2009). Brandom's Two-Ply Error. In Willem A. DeVries (ed.), Empiricism, Perceptual Knowledge, Normativity, and Realism: Essays on Wilfrid Sellars. Oxford University Press
William A. Rottschaefer (2011). The Middle Does Not Hold. Journal of Philosophical Research 36:361-369.
Lionel Shapiro (2013). Intentional Relations and the Sideways‐on View: On McDowell's Critique of Sellars. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (2):300-319.
Willem deVries (2011). Sellars Vs. McDowell on the Structure of Sensory Consciousness. Diametros 27 (27):47-63.
Steven Hendley (2010). Answerable to the World: Experience and Practical Intentionality in Brandom's and McDowell's "Intramural" Debate. Theoria 76 (2):129-151.
Michael Williams (2006). Science and Sensibility: McDowell and Sellars on Perceptual Experience. European Journal of Philosophy 14 (2):302–325.
Willem A. deVries (2006). McDowell, Sellars, and Sense Impressions. European Journal of Philosophy 14 (2):182–201.
Jeremy R. Koons (2004). Disenchanting the World: McDowell, Sellars, and Rational Constraint by Perception. Journal of Philosophical Research 29 (February):125-152.
John McDowell (2009). Why is Sellars's Essay Called "Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind"? In Willem A. DeVries (ed.), Empiricism, Perceptual Knowledge, Normativity, and Realism: Essays on Wilfrid Sellars. Oxford University Press
Daniel Bonevac (2002). Sellars Vs. The Given. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 64 (1):1-30.
Added to index2009-05-28
Total downloads100 ( #40,502 of 1,907,930 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #271,804 of 1,907,930 )
How can I increase my downloads?