The Appeal To The Given: A Study In Epistemology
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
London,: Allen &Amp; Unwin (1970)
Originally published in 1970. This work evaluates the appeal to the sensually given which played an important role in epistemological discussions during the early 20 th Century. While many contemporary philosophers regarded this appeal as a mistake, there were still some who defended the notion of the given and even made it the foundation of their views regarding perception. The author here points to several different views concerning the nature of the sensually given and argues that the issue between them is not empirical, as is naturally suggested by what he calls ‘the Naïve View’ of the dispute, but rather metaphysical, involving different theories regarding the relationship between Thought and Reality. This leads on to a discussion of the different views presently held regarding the task of the epistemologist, and to a new suggestion with regard to the relationship between common sense and the rival ontologies suggested by scientists and philosophers. In the course of the argument a variety of different topics are discussed such as the correspondence and coherence theories of truth, the differences between scientific and philosophical theories, and the relevance of scientific treatments of the subject of perception to the treatment of this topic by philosophers.
|Keywords||Analysis Cognition Coherence Common Sense Correspondence Epistemology Given Illusion Immediacy Object Perception Physical Object Science Sense Data Thought Ayer Sellars, W|
|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
Charles A. Campbell (1947). Sense Data and Judgment in Sensory Cognition. Mind 56 (October):289-316.
Winston H. F. Barnes (1945). The Myth of Sense-Data. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 45:89-118.
J. R. Jones (1954). Sense Data: A Suggested Source of the Fallacy. Mind 63 (April):180-202.
Timothy L. S. Sprigge (1966). The Common‐Sense View of Physical Objects. Inquiry 9 (1-4):339-373.
J. L. Austin (1964). Sense And Sensibilia; Reconstructed From The Manuscript Notes By G J Warnock. Oxford University Press.
G. N. Mathrani (1942). Do We Perceive Physical Objects? Philosophical Quarterly (India) 18 (October):175-182.
Stephen H. Bickham (1975). What is at Issue in the Ayer-Austin Dispute About Sense-Data. Midwestern Journal of Philosophy 1:1-8.
Godfrey N. A. Vesey (1971). Perception. Anchor Books.
A. J. Ayer (1945). The Terminology of Sense-Data. Mind 54 (October):289-312.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2009-01-28
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?