‘How, then, she had asked herself, did one know one thing or another thing about people, sealed as they were?’ So asks Lily Briscoe in To the Lighthouse. It is this question, rather than any concern about pretence or deception, which forms the basis for the philosophical problem of other minds. Responses to this problem have tended to cluster around two solutions: either we know others’ minds through perception; or we know others’ minds through a form of inference. In the (...) first part of this paper I argue that this debate is best understood as concerning the question of whether our knowledge of others’ minds is based on perception or based on evidence. In the second part of the paper I suggest that our ordinary ways of thinking take our knowledge of others’ minds to be both non- evidential and non-perceptual. A satisfactory resolution to the philosophical problem of other minds thus requires us to take seriously the idea that we have a way of knowing about others’ minds which is both non-evidential and non-perceptual. I suggest that our knowledge of others’ minds which is based on their expressions – our expressive knowledge - may fit this bill. (shrink)

Les quatre thèses suivantes ont pour résultat qu'il devient impossible de justifier sa croyance en l'existence d'états mentaux hors les siens propres : on a un accès direct à ses propres états mentaux ; on n'a qu'un accès indirect aux états mentaux d'autrui ; le matérialisme est indéfendable et toute prétention à la connaissance doit respecter des contraintes empiristes. L'argument par analogie, une tactique classique pour justifier cette croyance, est insoutenable, en particulier lorsqu'il se base sur le comportement linguistique. Un (...) autre argument de Putnam nous engage sur un terrain où, à la limite, il n'est plus nécessaire de parler des états mentaux d'autrui. Il faut donc rethématiser certains problèmes en théorie de la connaissance.The impossibility of justifying our commonsense belief that there are other minds follows from four theses: we have direct access to our own mental states ; we have only an indirect access to other's mental states ; materialism is untenable and our knowledge claims must be made in accordance with empiricist requirements. The well-known argument from analogy cannot be supported, especially when based on the analogy with linguistic behavior. Another argument, used by Putnam, runs on an epistemic ground. But here, the ultimate consequence is that it is useless to talk about other's mental states, a very unwelcomed conclusion. We are thus led to a reexamination of certain areas of the philosophy of knowledge, especially those connected with our knowledge of our own mental states. (shrink)

According to the perceptual model, our knowledge of others' minds is a form of perceptual knowledge. We know, for example, that Jones is angry because we can literally see that he is. In this essay, I argue that mental states do not have the kind of distinctive looks that could sufficiently justify perceptual knowledge of others’ mentality. I present a puzzle that can arise with respect to mental states that I claim does not arise for non-mental properties like being an (...) apple and argue that this is explained by the fact that the looks of non-mental properties adhere to a certain explanatory principle that does not hold for mental states. This shows, I argue, that, even if we think mental states do have looks, these cannot offer sufficient grounds for perceptual knowledge of others' minds. In the final section of the essay, I suggest an alternative way of thinking about our knowledge of others' minds and about the sorts of looks or appearances that might be associated with mental states. (shrink)