Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 86 (3):340-364 (2005)

Robert Hopkins
New York University
Reid’s discussion of Molyneux’s question has been neglected. The Inquiry discusses the question twice, offering opposing answers. The first discussion treats the underlying issue as concerning common perceptibles of touch and vision, and in particular whether in vision we originally perceive depth. Although it is tempting to treat the second discussion as doing the same, this would render pointless various novel features Reid introduces in reformulating Molyneux’s question. Rather, the issue now is whether the blind can form a reasonable conception of visual appearances, a conception that would allow them to perform Molyneux’s task. In explaining why Reid thought they can, I draw on his account of primary quality concepts as independent of sensation; of concept possession as ability, not acquaintance with sensation; and of visual appearance itself as in key part a matter of the perception of a primary quality, visible figure. Thus the issue does not concern cross-modality, what vision has in common with touch; but how even what is central in vision is amodal, able to be grasped independently of any sensory mode. Reid’s second Molyneux discussion thereby forms a focus for the Inquiry’s central claims, and the rejection of the Ideal Theory they entail.
Keywords Epistemology  Perception  Touch  Vision  Molyneux, William  Reid, Thomas
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/j.1468-0114.2005.00231.x
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,018
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

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Molyneux’s Question.Robert Hopkins - 2005 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 35 (3):441-464.
Contemporary Arguments for a Geometry of Visual Experience.Phillip John Meadows - 2011 - European Journal of Philosophy 19 (3):408-430.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles


Added to PP index

Total views
109 ( #106,045 of 2,498,304 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #426,910 of 2,498,304 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes