David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
For the most part, philosophical discussion of the senses has been concerned with what distinguishes them from one another, following Grice’s treatment of this issue in his ‘Remarks on the senses’. But this is one of two questions which Grice raises in this influential paper. The other, the question of what distinguishes senses from faculties that are not senses, is the question I address in this thesis. Though there are good reasons to think that the awareness we have of our bodies is perceptual, we do not usually think of bodily awareness as a sense. So in particular, I try to give an account of what it is that is distinctive about the five familiar modalities that they do not share with bodily awareness. I argue that what is distinctive about vision, touch, hearing, taste and smell, is that perception in all these modalities has enabling and disabling conditions of a certain kind. These enabling and disabling conditions are manifest in the conscious character of experience in these modalities, and exploited in active perceptual attention— in looking, listening, and so on. Bodily awareness has no such enabling conditions. The five familiar senses having this distinctive feature, and bodily awareness lacking it is not a merely incidental difference between them. Nevertheless, I do not claim that having these enabling conditions is necessary and sufficient for counting some faculty as a sense, or, correlatively, for something being an instance of sense-perception. Rather, we can see why it would serve certain human interests for us to think of the faculties that involve these enabling conditions as instances of a single kind of thing, of which bodily awareness is not an instance
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Joel Smith (2006). Bodily Awareness, Imagination, and the Self. European Journal of Philosophy 14 (1):49-68.
Mohan Matthen (2015). The Individuation of the Senses. In Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Perception. Oxford University Press 567-586.
Christopher Peacocke (2006). Mental Action and Self-Awareness. In Jonathan D. Cohen & Brian P. McLaughlin (eds.), Contemporary Debates in the Philosophy of Mind. Blackwell
Robert Hopkins (2011). Re-Imagining, Re-Viewing and Re-Touching. In Fiona McPherson (ed.), The senses: classic and contemporary philosophical perspectives. Oxford University Press, Usa 261.
John O'Dea (2011). A Proprioceptive Account of the Senses. In Fiona Macpherson (ed.), The Senses: Classical and Contemporary Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford University Press
P. Ross (2001). Qualia and the Senses. Philosophical Quarterly 51 (205):495-511.
Matthew Nudds (2004). The Significance of the Senses. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 104 (1):31-51.
John Schwenkler (2013). The Objects of Bodily Awareness. Philosophical Studies 162 (2):465-472.
Matthew Ratcliffe (2012). What is Touch? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (3):413 - 432.
Fiona Macpherson (2011). Taxonomising the Senses. Philosophical Studies 153 (1):123-142.
Matthew Nudds (2009). Discriminating Senses. The Philosophers' Magazine 45 (45):92-98.
John Louis Schwenkler (2009). Space and Self-Awareness. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley
Catherine Osborne (1995). Perceiving Particulars and Recollecting the Forms in the 'Phaedo'. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 95:211 - 233.
Added to index2012-01-10
Total downloads29 ( #118,453 of 1,780,198 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #122,348 of 1,780,198 )
How can I increase my downloads?