Kelly and McDowell on perceptual content

Electronic Journal of Analytic Philosophy 7 (2002)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

[0] In a recent issue of _EJAP_, Sean Kelly [1998] defended the position that perceptual content is non-conceptual. More specifically, he claimed that John McDowell's view that concepts involved in perception can be understood as expressible through the use of demonstratives is ultimately untenable. In what follows, I want to look more closely at Kelly's position, as well as suggest possible responses one could make on McDowell's behalf

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,349

External links

  • This entry has no external links. Add one.
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Affordances and the nature of perceptual content.Jan Almäng - 2008 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (2):161-177.
McDowell and the Contents of Intuition.Jacob Browning - 2019 - Dialectica 73 (1-2):83-104.
Does Perceptual Content Have to Be Objective? A Defence of Nonconceptualism.Eva Schmidt - 2015 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 46 (1):201-214.
What makes perceptual content non-conceptual?Sean D. Kelly - 2002 - Electronic Journal of Analytic Philosophy.
Demonstrative concepts and experience.Sean Dorrance Kelly - 2001 - Philosophical Review 110 (3):397-420.
The Content of Perceptual Experience.John McDowell - 1994 - Philosophical Quarterly 44 (175):190.
The Argument from Animal and Infant Perception.Eva Schmidt - 2010 - Teorema: International Journal of Philosophy 29 (2):97-110.

Analytics

Added to PP
2009-01-28

Downloads
0

6 months
0

Historical graph of downloads

Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Fred Ablondi
Hendrix College

Citations of this work

Nonconceptual mental content.Jose Luis Bermudez - 2003 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Add more citations

References found in this work

No references found.

Add more references