David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
European Journal of Philosophy 21 (2):n/a-n/a (2012)
The so-called ‘re-identification condition’ (Kelly ) 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 , Chuard ). 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)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Joseph Shieber (2010). On the Possibility of Conceptually Structured Experience: Demonstrative Concepts and Fineness of Grain. Inquiry 53 (4):383-397.
David Ripley (2012). Structures and Circumstances: Two Ways to Fine-Grain Propositions. Synthese 189 (1):97 - 118.
Michael Tye (2006). Nonconceptual Content, Richness, and Fineness of Grain. In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Perceptual Experience. Oxford University Press. 504â30.
Andre J. Abath (2008). A Note on McDowell's Response to the Fineness of Grain Argument. Dialogue 47 (3-4):677-.
Andre J. Abath (2008). A Note on McDowell's Response to the Fineness of Grain Argument. Dialogue 47 (3/4):677-686.
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.
Kevin Connolly (2011). Does Perception Outstrip Our Concepts in Fineness of Grain? Ratio 24 (3):243-258.
Sean D. Kelly (2001). The Non-Conceptual Content of Perceptual Experience: Situation Dependence and Fineness of Grain. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62 (3):601-608.
Caleb Liang (2006). Phenomenal Character and the Myth of the Given. Journal of Philosophical Research 31:21-36.
Brad J. Kallenberg (2004). The Strange New World in the Church: A Review Essay of "With the Grain of the Universe" by Stanley Hauerwas. [REVIEW] Journal of Religious Ethics 32 (1):197 - 217.
Alex Byrne (2005). Perception and Conceptual Content. In Ernest Sosa & Matthias Steup (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology. Blackwell. 231--250.
Charlie Pelling (2007). Conceptualism and the (Supposed) Non-Transitivity of Colour Indiscriminability. Philosophical Studies 134 (2):211 - 234.
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.
Added to index2012-05-05
Total downloads6 ( #160,010 of 1,004,644 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,617 of 1,004,644 )
How can I increase my downloads?