Voir (Barré) 26:48-73 (2003)

Authors
Olivier Massin
Université de Neuchâtel
Abstract
Our thesis is that proprioception is not a sixth sense distinct from the sense of touch, but a part of that tactile (or haptic) sense. The tactile sense is defined as the sense whose direct intentional objects are macroscopic mechanical properties. We first argue (against D. Armstrong, 1962; B. O'Shaughnessy 1989, 1995, 1998 and M. Martin, 1992, 1993,1995) that the two following claims are incompatible : (i) proprioception is a sense distinct from touch; (ii) touch is a bipolar modality, that intrinsically has both a subjective-bodily pole and objective pole. We then argue that the bipolarity of touch should be preferred over the introduction of a sui generis sense of the body. We try to revive Aristotle suggestion according to which the body is the tactile medium (like the air for sight). Since this medium is constantly changing its shape, we need some specific channel of information about its state : proprioception, functionally defined, is that part of touch which informs us about the state of this changing tactile medium. Though muscular and articular receptors are usually dedicated to inform us about the mechanical properties of the tactile media, and the skin receptors about the mechanical properties of the tactile objects, this is not essentially so. In weighting or wielding experiments we access the weight of external objects even when skin sensitivity is absent; in prosthetic touch, the skin receptors play the role usually assigned to muscle and articular receptors, namely to inform us about the mechanical state of the tactile medium. So proprioception, anatomically defined, can play both the role of informing us about the tactile medium, or about the tactile objects. That other sensory modalities also rely on proprioceptive information should be understood in terms of cross-modal dependencies: of sight, hearing, smell, taste...on touch.
Keywords proprioception  touch  bipolarity  body  haptic  muscular  senses  perception  sense of the body  tactile
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Translate to english
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

 PhilArchive page | Other versions
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

Erotic Art as Proprioceptive Art.Jiri Benovsky - 2021 - British Journal of Aesthetics 61 (2):247-258.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Touching Intelligence.David Morris - 2002 - Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 29 (149-162):149-162.
The Unity of Haptic Touch.Matthew Fulkerson - 2011 - Philosophical Psychology 24 (4):493 - 516.
Touch and Situatedness.Matthew Ratcliffe - 2008 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (3):299 – 322.
The Case for Proprioception.Ellen Fridland - 2011 - Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences 10 (4):521-540.
Bodily Awareness, Imagination, and the Self.Joel Smith - 2006 - European Journal of Philosophy 14 (1):49-68.
Empathy and Sympathy as Tactile Encounter.Edith Wyschogrod - 1981 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 6 (1):25-44.
Touching Pictures.Robert Hopkins - 2000 - British Journal of Aesthetics 40 (1):149-167.
Proprioceiving Someone Else's Movement.Barbara Montero - 2006 - Philosophical Explorations 9 (2):149 – 161.
Self-Consciousness and the Body.Monica Meijsing - 2000 - Journal of Consciousness Studies 7 (6):34-50.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2012-10-31

Total views
658 ( #10,299 of 2,454,418 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
44 ( #18,181 of 2,454,418 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes