The given and the hard problem of content

Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences:1-26 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX


Wilfrid Sellars’ denunciation of the Myth of the Given was meant to clarify, against empiricism, that perceptual episodes alone are insufficient to ground and justify perceptual knowledge. Sellars showed that in order to accomplish such epistemic tasks, more resources and capacities, such as those involved in using concepts, are needed. Perceptual knowledge belongs to the space of reasons and not to an independent realm of experience. Dan Hutto and Eric Myin have recently presented the Hard Problem of Content as an ensemble of reasons against naturalistic accounts of content. In a nutshell, it states that covariance relations—even though they are naturalistically acceptable explanatory resources—do not constitute content. The authors exploit this move in order to promote their preferred radical enactivist and anti-representationalist option, according to which, basic minds—the lower stratum of cognition—do not involve content. Although it is controversial to argue that the Hard Problem of Content effectively dismisses naturalistic theories of representation, a central aspect of it—the idea that information as covariance does not suffice to explain content—finds support among the defenders of classical cognitive representationalism, such as Marcin Miłkowski. This support—together with the acknowledgment this remark about covariance is a point already made by Sellars in his criticism of the Myth of the Given—has a number of interesting implications. Not only is it of interest for the debates about representationalism in cognitive science, where it can be understood as an anticipatory move, but it also offers some clues and insights for reconsidering some issues along Sellarsian lines—a conflation between two concepts of representation that is often assumed in cognitive science, a distinction between two types of relevant normativities, and a reconsideration of the naturalism involved in such explanations.

Similar books and articles

The Middle Does Not Hold.William A. Rottschaefer - 2011 - Journal of Philosophical Research 36:361-369.
Wilfrid Sellars. [REVIEW]Willem A. deVries - 2008 - Review of Metaphysics 61 (4):854-855.
Sellars on Descartes.Christian Barth - 2018 - In Luca Corti & Antonio Nunziante (eds.), Sellars and the History of Modern Philosophy. New York, USA: Routledge. pp. 15-35.
Normativity and Scientific Naturalism in Sellars’ ‘Janus‐Faced’ Space of Reasons.James R. O’Shea - 2010 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 18 (3):459-471.
Wilfrid Sellars. [REVIEW]William A. Rottschaefer - 2009 - Teaching Philosophy 32 (1):96-102.
Action, knowledge, and reality.Wilfrid Sellars & Hector-Neri Castañeda (eds.) - 1975 - Indianapolis,: Bobbs-Merrill.
The Ethics of Wilfrid Sellars.Jeremy Randel Koons - 2018 - New York, USA: Routledge.
Phenomenal character and the myth of the given.Caleb Liang - 2006 - Journal of Philosophical Research 31:21-36.
Wilfrid Sellars and the Foundations of Normativity by Peter Ole.William A. Rottschaefer - 2017 - Journal of the History of Philosophy 55 (4):745-746.


Added to PP

629 (#26,255)

6 months
239 (#9,626)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?