Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T09:31:28.602Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reidian Dual Component Theory defended

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Todd Buras
Todd Buras*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Baylor University, One Bear Place #97273, Waco, TX, 76798
*
*Email: Todd_Buras@baylor.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For Reid perception, broadly speaking, was a complex of two very different mental states. Calling such views dual component theory, A. D. Smith questions whether any such theory, and whether Reid's version in particular, is a viable theory of perception. The aim of this paper is to defend Reidian Dual Component Theory from Smith's critique. Answering Smith's critique reveals the depth and resilience of Reid's approach to perception, highlighting specifically the continued interest of his thought about the relationship between sensation and perception, the nature of illusion, the immediacy of perception, and the content of perceptual belief.

Keywords

Thomas Reidsensationperceptiondirect realismdual component theory
Type
Perception
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue S1: New Essays on Reid , July 2011 , pp. 4 - 24
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armstrong, David 1961. Perception and the Physical World. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Berkeley, George 1998. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, edited by Dancy, Jonathan New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Buras, Todd 2002. “The Problem with Reid's Direct Realism.” The Philosophical Quarterly 52: 457–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buras, Todd 2006. “The Nature of Sensations in Reid.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 22 (3): 221–238.Google Scholar
Buras, Todd 2008. “Three Grades of Immediate Perception: Thomas Reid's Distinctions.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 76: 603–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buras, Todd 2009. “The Function of Sensations in Reid.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 47 (3): 329–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, John 2002. “Berkeley's Puzzle.” In Conceivability and Possibility, edited by Gendler, Tamar Szabo and Hawthorne, John New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chapell, 1989. “The Theory of Sensations.” In The Philosophy of Thomas Reid, edited by Dalgarno, Melvin and Matthews, Eric Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick M. 1957. Perceiving: A Philosophical Study. New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Copenhaver, Rebecca 2010. “Thomas Reid on Acquired Perception.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (3): 285–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copenhaver, Rebecca 2004. “A Realism for Reid: Mediated but Direct.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy 12 (1): 61–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dretske, Fred 1997. Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenstein, Lorne 2000. “Reid's Account of Localization.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61: 305–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenstein, Lorne 2002. “Hume and Reid on the Perception of Hardness.” Hume Studies (28): 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foster, John A. 2000. The Nature of Perception. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganson, Todd 2008. “Reid's Rejection of Intentionalism.” Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy 4: 245–263.Google Scholar
Grave, S. A. 1960. The Scottish Philosophy of Common Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, Harman 1990. “The Intrinsic Quality of Experience.” Philosophical Perspectives 4: 31–52.Google Scholar
Hume, David 2000. A Treatise of Human Understanding. Edited by Norton, David Fate and Norton, Mary J. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, Frank 1977. Perception: A Representative Theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 2004. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics that will be able to Present Itself as a Science. Edited by Zoller, Gunter Translated by Lucas, Peter G. and Zoller, Gunter New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Madden, E. H. 1986. “Was Reid a Natural Realist?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 47: 255–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackintosh, James 1837. Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy. 2nd ed. Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Pappas, George 1989. “Sensation and Perception in Reid.” Nous (23): 155–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pelser, Adam 2010. “Belief in Reid's Theory of Perception.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 27 (4): 359–378.Google Scholar
Priestley, Joseph 1978. An Examination. New York: Garland Publishing.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas 1895. The Works of Thomas Reid. 8thed. Notes and Supplementary Dissertations by Sir Hamilton, William Edinburgh: James Thin.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas 1997. An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense: A Critical Edition. Edited by Brookes, Derek R. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas 2002. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man: A Critical Edition. Edited by Brookes, Derek R. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, Howard 1994. Perception. New York: Routledge.Google ScholarPubMed
Schopenhauer, Arthur 1969. The World as Will and Representation. Translated by Payne, E.F.J. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid 1975. “The Structure of Knowledge.” In Action, Knowledge, and Reality: Critical Studies in Honor of Wilfrid Sellars, edited by Castaneda, H.-N. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Smith, A. D. 2001. “Perception and Belief.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62: 283–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, A. D. 2002. The Problem of Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Somerville, James 1995. The Enigmatic Parting Shot: What was Hume's ‘Compleat Answer to Dr. Reid and to that Bigotted Silly Fellow, Beattie’? Avebury.Google Scholar
van Cleve, James 2004. “Reid's Theory of Perception.” In The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Reid, edited by Cuneo, Terence and Woudenberg, Rene van 101–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas 2001. Thomas Reid and the Story of Epistemology. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, P. B. 1986. “David Hume on Thomas Reid's An Inquiry into the Human Mind, On the Principles of Common Senses: A New Letter to Hugh Blair from July 1762.” Mind 95: 411–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar