A short paper which is pretty much what its title says it is.

In this paper, I consider the materiality of experience as stemming from a temporal process of sense-formation (Sinnbildung), whose essence is not just formally configured, but also materially organized. In order to understand this process of sense-formation, I first examine the materiality that is intrinsic to the intentional sense and its relationship with the sensible materiality of experience brought forth by the project of hyletic phenomenology. In the second part of the paper, I propose to overcome the tension between a (...) materiality of sense and a materiality of sensibility by reflecting on the specific materiality that is created in our experience through the dynamism of imaginative modifications. Allowing us to switch between different temporal and spatial horizons, imaginative projections and reveries reveal a hidden “reverse” side of our perceptive field, that we access only when we let go of objectifying acts and established significance. In the last part of the paper, I turn toward bodily gestures, in which I see an expression of experience that resists objectification and straightforward symbolization, attesting for the complex social inscription of our bodily existence. I end the paper with an inquiry into the specific materiality of gestures, understanding them as vanishing archives offered to the future. (shrink)

This paper suggests a critique of the zombie argument that bypasses the need to decide on the truth of its main premises, and specifically, avoids the need to enter the battlefield of whether conceivability entails metaphysical possibility. It is argued that if we accept, as the zombie argument’s supporters would urge us, the assumption that an ideal reasoner can conceive of a complete physical description of the world without conceiving of qualia, the general principle that conceivability entails metaphysical possibility, and (...) the general principle that for any s and t the metaphysical possibility of s & − t entails that s does not necessitate t, we have to conclude not that materialism is false but rather that either materialism or the “mental paint” (or “phenomenist”) conception of phenomenality is false. And further, given the initial advantages of materialism, the fact that proponents of the zombie argument are not allowed to rely on arguments against materialism in confronting this dilemma, and difficulties with arguments in favor of phenomenism, we find ourselves pushed to reject the mental paint conception rather than materialism. Or at any rate, it is hard to see how the proponent of the zombie argument can carry the burden of proof that lies with her. Thus, whether or not those premises of the zombie argument are true, the argument fails to refute materialism. (shrink)

Scotus’ mark on Suárez’s metaphysics can be perceived not only in his elaboration of intellectual knowledge of the singular, but also in the idea that prime matter is not pure potency, but possesses its own act, as well as in the thesis that states that the accident possesses too its own being. Of these two ideas, in addition to the tendency towards hypostatisation both regarding matter and accident, comes the breakdown of the unity of material substance both in the substantial (...) and accidental planes, something that Suárez, in a way very similar to Scotus, tries to remedy by appealing to the modes of union. Lastly, a fundamental consequence of the hypostatisation of the accident is phenomenism, as seen in the works of authors such as Locke and Kant. (shrink)

The paper examines the ramifications of naturalism with regard to the question of individuality in economics and biology. Economic theory has to deal with whether households, firms, and states are individuals or are mere entities such as clubs, networks, and coalitions. Biological theory has to deal with the same question with regard to cells, organisms, family packs, and colonies. To wit, the question of individuality in both disciplines involves three separate problems: the metaphysical, phenomenist, and ontological. The metaphysical problem is (...) concerned with purposeful action: Is the firm or organism exclusively the product of efficient causality (optimization) or is it motivated by final causality (purposefulness)? The phenomenist problem is interested in the substantiality of essences: Is the firm''s or organism''s scheme of institutions/traits deep or is it extraneous to identity? The ontological problem is related to the issue of reductionism: Is the behavior of lower-level organization governed by a pre-constituted entities or is it context-sensitive? The paper finds that theoretical differences run along the naturalist/anti-naturalist divide rather than along disciplinary specialization. Also, the paper finds that it is not inconsistent for the same theorist to be naturalist with regard to one problem and anti-naturalist with respect to the other two problems. (shrink)

[What It’s Like, or What It’s About? The Place of Consciousness in the Material World] Summary: The book is both a survey of the contemporary debate and a defense of a distinctive position. Most philosophers nowadays assume that the focus of the philosophy of consciousness, its shared explanandum, is a certain property of experience variously called “phenomenal character,” “qualitative character,” “qualia” or “phenomenology,” understood in terms of what it is like to undergo the experience in question. Consciousness as defined in (...) terms of its phenomenal aspect is often called “phenomenal consciousness.” The major issue that occupies most thinkers is whether this phenomenal character happens to be a physical property, or whether it is rather sui generis. Those who believe the former are materialists; those who conclude the latter are dualists. As the currently dominant metaphysic is materialism – also sometimes called physicalism – the challenge appears to be to slot phenomenal properties among the physical properties that ultimately make up the world. David Chalmers argued powerfully that we can go very far in situating many mental properties in the physical world – namely, the properties that can be understood in functional terms – but that phenomenal properties resist such a treatment. Chalmers calls this “the hard problem” of consciousness. But there are also some quite powerful positive arguments for dualism. The two most influential ones are the modal argument, also offered by Chalmers, and the knowledge argument invented by Frank Jackson. Chalmers invites us to conceive of creatures that are exactly like human beings – physically, functionally, behaviorally – only bereft of phenomenal consciousness. If such creatures are conceivable, says Chalmers, they are metaphysically possible. And if they are metaphysically possible, materialism is false. Jackson, for his part, suggests we imagine Mary who has spent her entire life inside a black-and-white room and has seen the world through a black-and-white TV screen. But she also happens to know everything there is to know about the physics of color. And yet, Jackson suggests that once Mary is finally released from her room and sees a lawn outside, she learns something new: that this is what it is like to experience green color. The current work on consciousness is by and large characterized by attempts to answer these two dualistic arguments. I try to make sense of the positions within the domain of philosophy of consciousness by means of two major distinctions that mutually intersect. First, there is a distinction between dualism and materialism. An apparent third alternative currently on offer, the so-called Russellian monism, is unstable, collapsing into either dualism (panpsychism) or materialism (Russellian physicalism). Materialism comes in two main flavors: either the a posteriori physicalism, which detects an epistemic gap between phenomenal and physical truths, hence denying that the former could be derived from the latter; or the a priori physicalism, which does not acknowledge any such obstacle. The second major distinction is between phenomenism and representationalism. It’s true that Ned Block, who introduced this contrast, meant to distinguish between two kinds of materialism. But I believe that the distinction actually intersects the one between materialism and dualism. We thus arrive at a table with six slots, representing six main positions in the philosophy of consciousness: (1) dualist phenomenism (Chalmers, the early Jackson, and Tyler Burge); (2) dualist representationalism (René Descartes); (3) aposteriori materialist phenomenism (Block); (4) a posteriori materialist representationalism (Michael Tye, Fred Dretske, David Rosenthal); (5) a priori materialist phenomenism (David Lewis); and (6) a priori materialist representationalism (Daniel Dennett, Derk Pereboom). However, this scheme is in fact somewhat misleading. It is true that Dennett is usually classified as an apriori materialist (or, more precisely an apriori materialist representationalist), but I believe that needs to be corrected. In order to understand why, I first analyze varieties of materialist representationalism in detail, in particular various construals of phenomenal character in terms of representation, or intentionality, which includes a discussion of the identity of its content (the issue of externalism). By contrast, Dennett rejects the concept of phenomenal character. Consciousness has no intrinsic, publicly inaccessible properties. On that ground, Dennett builds an empirical, fully functionalist theory of consciousness, which he also tries to integrate within a general Darwinian framework. From that point of view, one can contrast Dennettian and representationalist views on the issue of animal consciousness. In addition to his rejection of phenomenal character, Dennett also abstains from the regular metaphysical departure point of regular materialism. He does not so much ask how an enigmatic property of consciousness fits an antecedently characterized world, but rather how far we can investigate all aspects of the world, including consciousness, using the scientific method. He is thus a methodological naturalist, rather than a metaphysical materialist. While this approach removes obstacles to the science of consciousness, it does not solve what might be called “the hardest problem” – of intentionality, not phenomenal consciousness. The hardest problem consists in the fact that our intentional discourse involves conflicting commitments that prevent a coherent metaphysic of representational states. However, it does not follow that we should give up on this discourse as a theoretical means of reduction as well as a practical tool of explanation. But it might be that intentional discourse is a somewhat pseudo one. (shrink)

Maurice Blondel, best known for his 1893 work on Action, offers a window on the world of philosophers who negotiated the scientific disciplines at the turn of the twentieth century. During this amazing era of discoveries, Blondel encouraged the bold, encyclopedic spirit of science as well as the new standards coming into use for accumulating and judging observational evidence. However, he warned of reductionism, determinism, and phenomenism, trends which could be avoided or corrected if the nature and scope of (...) science were broadened. Such a broadening would introduce a more integrated and holistic understanding of the scientific quest. (shrink)

Cet article analyse la relation entre la sensation et son objet telle qu’elle apparaît dans les Anticipations de la perception de la Critique de la raison pure. Montrant que ni l’interprétation phénoméniste ni celle, causale, de la seconde Analogie, ne sont adéquates afin d’en rendre compte, on explique que c’est le concept d’influence, issu de la troisième Analogie, qui permet d’établir le fondement ontologique de la « correspondance » entre la grandeur intensive de la sensation et celle de son objet, (...) le « réel dans le phénomène ». (shrink)

Goethe n'est pas seulement poete, dramaturge, romancier, artiste. Il est aussi philosophe et surtout philosophe de la nature. Il manifeste un interet constant pour des questions scientifiques variees (physique, theorie des couleurs, chimie, meteorologie, geologie, mineralogie, morphologie, botanique, zoologie) et influencera profondement la philosophie allemande de la nature des annees 1780-1830. Goethe est une reference incontournable pour la Naturphilosophie tant idealiste (Kant, Schelling, Hegel) que romantique (Holderlin, Novalis, Schlegel). Il est, selon l'historien de la philosophie Johann Hoffmeister, parmi la nebuleuse (...) heterogene des philosophes de la nature, comme " le Soleil au milieu des planetes ". Goethe meme considere ses ecrits scientifiques comme un volet majeur de son oeuvre, et dialogue avec d'eminents savants de son temps (Cuvier, Geoffroy Saint Hilaire, les freres Humboldt). Sa Naturphilosophie articule une theorie de la connaissance a une redefinition de l'experience privilegiant le recours a l'intuition visuelle, ainsi que la recherche de " phenomenes originaires " (Urphanomene) et des metamorphoses auxquelles ils donnent lieu. Hegel louera dans la Naturphilosophie de Goethe " l'intuition pleine de sens [...] qui ordonne ce qui n'est que phenomene d'une maniere conforme a la suite interieure du concept ". Le present ouvrage eclaire ce Goethe Naturphilosoph fondateur d'une episteme intuitionniste, phenomeniste, voire phenomenologique, aux antipodes de la science physico-mathematique, quantitative et intellectuelle, de Descartes ou Newton et inaugurant un style original de comprehension des phenomenes naturels qui se joue des frontieres a la fois entre les disciplines scientifiques et entre la philosophie et son autre (science, litterature). (shrink)

Dans la Lettre, Blondel entend étudier le problème religieux en respectant intégralement « les exigences de la pensée contemporaine ». L’auteur s’interroge sur les raisons d’une « restriction méthodique » qui tient à ce que l’étude blondélienne de la religion est rationnelle parce qu’utilisant une méthode d’immanence dont la portée est strictement phénoméniste. Après avoir étudié les deux formes de phénoménisme soutenues à la fin du XIXe siècle, l’une venant du Positivisme, l’autre du Criticisme, celle-ci nourrissant l’objection de Brunschvicg au (...) projet de L’Action, cette contribution analyse les « explications de Blondel » dans sa vive réaction à ses accusateurs, réaction adressée au directeur de la Revue de métaphysique et de morale. S’il s’étonne du silence français en matière d’analyse critique de la religion, à la différence de ce qui se passe dans le monde anglo-saxon parce que sans doute marqué par le Protestantisme, c’est précisément pour y remédier de façon philosophiquement rigoureuse. Sa recension de l’ouvrage de Delbos, sous le titre « L’évolution du Spinozisme », lui permet d’établir la logique interne de la philosophie moderne dans laquelle s’inscrit le caractère rationnel des réflexions développées dans la Lettre.In the Lettre, Blondel intended to study the religious problem by respecting integrally « the demands of contemporaneous thought ». The author asks himself about the reasons of a « methodological restriction » that depends on the fact that Blondel's study of religion is rational because it uses a method of immanence of which the scope is strictly phenomenist. After studying the two forms of phenomenism held at the end of the 19th century, one coming from Positivism, the other from Criticism – the latter nourishing the objection of Brunschvicg to the project of Action – this contribution analyses the « explanations of Blondel » in his strong reaction to his accusers, a reaction addressed to the director of Revue de métaphysique et de morale. If he is surprised at the French silence as regards a critical analysis of religion, different from that which was happening in the Anglo-Saxon world because it was undoubtedly marked by Protestantism, it is precisely to put it on the same level in a rigorous philosophical way. His review of Delbos'work, entitled « The Evolution of Spinozanism », permitted him to establish the internal logic of modern philosophy, upon which the rational character of the reflections developed in the Lettre is based. (shrink)

La méthode de Meyerson est une méthode logique ; appliquée d’une façon différente soit à l’étude de la pensée qui se dirige vers l’élaboration de la science, soit à son exercice spontané. Cette méthode logique comporte des conclusions qui empêchent la connaissance d’atteindre le réel dans son intégrité. Il s’en suit l’impossibilité d’arriver à une unification complète de ce réel même.. Une vraie métaphysique manque à Meyerson. 11 est nécessaire, pour y parvenir, de dépasser les présupposés phénoménistes de Meyerson, et (...) d’atteindre l’être. On parvient ainsi à compléter la valeur de son effort remarquable. (shrink)

In Berkeley’s writings the topic of light is discussed in two different ways, within a theory of perception and within a metaphysics of nature of a Platonic stamp. In his first work, the original Essay for a New Theory of Vision, light and colours are regarded as condition and object of vision; they are examined as contents of visual perception distinct from tangible perception. Light will be dealt with in a completely different manner in Berkeley’s last work, Siris, in which (...) a spiritualistic reading of the natural world is superimposed on modern science in general and on Newtonian physics in particular. In Siris, light is the instrument by which the causal activity of divine Intellect orders and permeates the natural world. A detailed analysis of the topic of light in the two aforementioned contexts shows inconsistencies and strained interpretations which derive from the apologetic use of the theory of vision in Berkeley’s early immaterialism and from the multi-layered and confused speculations of his late Siris. On the whole, Berkeley conceives light within the idealistic frame inherited from Platonic metaphysics of light; however, the specific themes examined in the Essay for a New Theory of Vision and in Siris derive from acquisitions of modern science, and are recast within a spiritualistic interpretation which intended both to neutralize scientific ideas through their phenomenistic reading and to exploit them for apologetic ends. (shrink)

The representationist maintains that an experience represents a state of affairs. To elaborate, a stimulus of one’s sensorium produces, according to her, a “phenomenal composite” made up of “phenomenal properties” that are the typical effects of certain mind-independent features of the world, which are thereby represented. It is such features, via their phenomenal representatives, of which the subject of an experience would become aware were she to engage in introspection. So, one might ask, what state of affairs would be represented (...) by an illusory experience, that is, one to which no state of affairs in the vicinity of its subject corresponds? The answer, according to the standard defense of representationism (SD), is the same state of affairs that would obtain in its subject’s surroundings if it were veridical. (shrink)

Normal 0 21 In 1802 Hegel publishes in Jena “On the Relationship of Skepticism to Philosophy”. This article has the objective of criticizing the skepticism of Gottlob Ernst Schulze. The accomplishment of that critic will demand from Hegel the review of some fundamental aspects of the ancient skepticism. It treats here of reconsidering Hegel’s interpretation of the ancient skepticism, starting from that critic to the modern skepticism of Schulze.

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Porchat Pereira and the Neo‐Pyrrhonian School Knowledge and Skepticism: The Legacy of Ezequiel de Olaso Luis Villoro and the Beginnings of Systematic Studies in Analytic Epistemology Current Analytic Epistemology in Latin America Acknowledgments References Further Reading.

In this chapter, while acknowledging an important and famous early influence of Renouvier on James’s notions of belief and free will, the author documents a major and growing disagreement in their exchanges. The author argues that this disagreement is by no means a peripheral matter, since it involves James’s assessment of Renouvier’s neo-Kantianism. After having presented the core of Renouvier’s main influence in the section “Free Will’s Champion, Kantian Style,” the author gives a brief survey of James’s presence in the (...) Critique Philosophique in the section “James’s Contributions,” and deals, in the following sections, with James’s early criticisms of Renouvier on philosophical method (the section “Methods and Categories”), on the perception of space and time (the section ”Unbounded Spaces”) and on consciousness (the section ”The Stream of Thought”). In order to accomplish this, the author focuses on a more limited period than James' career as a whole: the author follows him from the early writings to the mid-1880s—that is, precisely to the point where James and Renouvier's philosophical itineraries begin to diverge. The author’s larger goal is to illustrate how the Critique Philosophique was at first a hospitable publication for the young James, but also how, from the end of this period on, important disputes emerged, in particular over consciousness, which gave rise to a paradoxical situation: the very organ that contributed to make James known turned out to be at odds with several of his most important theses, before the publication of the Principles, and even more before Pragmatism. (shrink)

It is a common conviction among philosophers who hold that phenomenal properties, qualia, are distinct from any cognitive, intentional, or functional properties, that it is possible to trace the neural correlates of these properties. The main purpose of this paper is to present a challenge to this view, and to show that if “non-cognitive” phenomenal properties exist at all, they lie beyond the reach of neuroscience. In the final section it will be suggested that they also lie beyond the reach (...) of psychology, so that they may be said to lie beyond the reach of science. (shrink)