David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Mind 109 (435):481-518 (2000)
This paper, which has both a historical and a polemical aspect, investigates the view, dominant throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, that the sense of sight is, originally, not phenomenally three-dimensional in character, and that we must come to interpret its properly two-dimensional data by reference to the sense of 'touch'. The principal argument for this claim, due to Berkeley, is examined and found wanting. The supposedly confirming findings concerning 'Molyneux subjects' are also investigated and are shown to be either irrelevant or disconfirming. Recent investigations on infant and neonatal perception are discussed and are also found to be disconfirming. An innatist version of the theory is then considered and is shown to be undermined by the largely 'Gibsonian' character of early space-perception. Finally three recent arguments in favour of the theory - two from psychologists, one from a philosopher - are considered and answered
|Keywords||Epistemology Perception Sight Space Berkeley Locke|
|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
Robert Briscoe (2008). Vision, Action, and Make‐Perceive. Mind and Language 23 (4):457-497.
Phillip John Meadows (2011). Contemporary Arguments for a Geometry of Visual Experience. European Journal of Philosophy 19 (3):408-430.
Phillip John Meadows (2013). On A. D. Smith's Constancy Based Defence of Direct Realism. Philosophical Studies 163 (2):513-525.
Katherine Dunlop (2011). The Role of Visual Language in Berkeley's Account of Generality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (3):525-559.
Similar books and articles
Gerald Vision (1989). Sight and Cognition. Metaphilosophy 20 (January):12-33.
D. G. Collingridge (1978). Berkeley on Space, Sight and Touch. Philosophy 53 (203):102 - 105.
Michael Jacovides (2012). Locke and the Visual Array. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (1):69-91.
D. W. Hamlyn (1962). Space and Sight: The Perception of Space and Shape in the Congenitally Blind Before and After Operation. By M. Von Senden. (Methuen. 1960. Pp. 348. Price 42s.). [REVIEW] Philosophy 37 (139):80-.
Ludovic Soutif (2008). Logical Space and the Space of Sight: The Relevance of Wittgenstein's Arguments to Recent Issues in the Philosophy of Mind. Dialogue 47 (3-4):501-536.
Vaughan Cornish (1935). Scenery and the Sense of Sight. Cambridge [Eng.]The University Press.
H. V. Stainsby (1970). Sight and Sense-Data. Mind 79 (April):170-187.
Marc A. Hight (2002). Why We Do Not See What We Feel. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 83 (2):148-162.
Virgil C. Aldrich (1974). Sight and Light. American Philosophical Quarterly 11 (October):317-322.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads50 ( #30,606 of 1,096,454 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #45,639 of 1,096,454 )
How can I increase my downloads?