Belief, Re‐identification and Fineness of Grain

European Journal of Philosophy 22 (2):229-248 (2014)
Abstract
The so-called ‘re-identification condition’ (Kelly 2011) has played an important role in the most prominent argument for nonconceptualism, the argument from fineness of grain. A number of authors have recently argued that the condition should be modified or discarded altogether, with devastating implications for the nonconceptualist (see, e.g., Brewer 2005, Chuard 2006). The aim of this paper is to show that the situation is even more dire for nonconceptualists, for even if the re-identification condition remains in its original form, the argument from fineness of grain still fails to make the case for nonconceptualism. The paper's central case rests on two claims: according to the first, if the re-identification condition holds, then some beliefs will represent some properties nonconceptually; and according to the second, if some beliefs represent some properties nonconceptually, the argument from fineness of grain fails to make the case for nonconceptualism in any relevant sense. It follows that if the re-identification condition holds, the argument from fineness of grain fails to make the case for nonconceptualism
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 12,088
External links
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

View all 20 references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Similar books and articles
Michael Tye (2006). Nonconceptual Content, Richness, and Fineness of Grain. In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Perceptual Experience. Oxford University Press. 504–30.
Michael Tye (2006). Nonconceptual Content and Fineness of Grain. In Tamar Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Perceptual Experience. Oxford University Press.
StephenMurray Glaister (2000). Recovery Recovered. Journal of Philosophical Logic 29 (2):171-206.
Alex Byrne (2005). Perception and Conceptual Content. In Ernest Sosa & Matthias Steup (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Blackwell. 231--250.
Robert M. Anderson (1974). The Illusions of Experience. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1974:549 - 561.
Jeffrey C. King (2013). On Fineness of Grain. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):763-781.
Analytics

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2012-05-05

Total downloads

17 ( #103,196 of 1,101,947 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

11 ( #21,892 of 1,101,947 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Start a new thread
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.