We already have a distinction between the intension and extension of terms. This is not simply the distinction that is operative in philosophy of mind, body, and action. There, the concern is with things, and with a physicalistic or a mentalistic account of them. The physicalist says he supports an ‘extensional’ analysis of things, the mentalist an ‘intensional’. So, the physicalist says that, in the end, only ‘the extensional language of physical science’ will do in ontology. But, associating this physical-mental (...) dichotomy with the intension-extension distinction as applied to terms is misleading. The ontological issue is obscured by the association. An ontologist wants, like Spinoza or Berkeley, to know whetherthingsare extended or not, and in what respects. This question makes central the concept of space, or more generally of ‘field’, ‘domain’. Unfortunately, the same word ‘extension’ is used also for the spread or location of athingin space. To dissociate the extension of a term, a logical notion, from the ontological notion of the spatial status of a thing, I introduce the new word ‘extention’. This coinage correlates, not with the ‘intension’ of terms—the logical correlate of ‘extension’—but with ‘intention’, a word that fortunately already has common currency, and reeks with connotations that have logical ties with ‘consciousness’. So, from here on, we have two dichotomies: intension-extension applying to terms, and intention-extention applying to things. Since terms are things, both sorts of considerations are relevant to them, the logical one and the ontological. Only the latter applies to, say, stones or persons, since these are not linguistic terms. (shrink)

Kripke's own view of the 'inner life' as comprised of '"qualia"' that have no 'natural "external" manifestation' leads him into misinterpreting wittgenstein's denials on this count. so kripke gives wittgenstein's account a paradoxical and sceptical cast which misrepresents it, making it look as if it called for a sceptical solution and a 'warranted assertibility' theory of truth. but wittgenstein was making sport of the 'inner-outer' (subjective-objective) distinction with the rapier of his suggestion that psychological talk is not regulated by the (...) logic of object-designation-and-property talk. a conventional reading can mistake this as a "simple" denial of logic wholesale that jettisons rules, meanings, and their ilk. (shrink)

Lord Acton, in his letter to the contributors to the Cambridge Modern History, wrote: “By Universal History, I understand that which is distinct from the combined histories of all countries … and is not a burden on the memory but an illumination of the soul.” If we replace “history” by the more general term “knowledge,” we get the statement of an ideal cherished by the great men of every age—those lonely pioneers to whom book-learning is an intellectual gloom more treacherous (...) than the natural gloom of night, since it fools men into thinking that it is a light by which men can see. The pioneers in thought, or indeed in any field, have made a secret treaty with nature. They smile with her at the robed and tassled scholar who, “Bewundrung von Kindern und Affen,” can “lecture plausibly about anything and get himself admired by the less learned.” Those pioneers, those men who—as someone has said—have thought according to no one and have made the human race think according to them, see by an intuitive insight, an illumination of the soul. Einstein, in his prologue to Planck's book Where is Science Going?, writes: “There is only the way of intuition. … The state of mind which furnishes the driving power here resembles that of the devotee or the lover. The long-sustained effort is not inspired by any set plan or purpose. It arises from a hunger of the soul.” We have not quoted a poet, but the greatest of mathematical physicists. (shrink)

This book presents the thesis that appearances should not be viewed simply as functions of a prevailing conceptual system. In addition to making a valuable contribution to the study of the mind/body problem, distinguished between first and second-order extensions, the book provides an excellent evaluation of the philosophy of physicalism and develops an exceptionally sound theory of personhood.

We already have a distinction between the intension and extension of terms. This is not simply the distinction that is operative in philosophy of mind, body, and action. There, the concern is with things, and with a physicalistic or a mentalistic account of them. The physicalist says he supports an ‘extensional’ analysis of things, the mentalist an ‘intensional’. So, the physicalist says that, in the end, only ‘the extensional language of physical science’ will do in ontology. But, associating this physical-mental (...) dichotomy with the intension-extension distinction as applied to terms is misleading. The ontological issue is obscured by the association. An ontologist wants, like Spinoza or Berkeley, to know whetherthingsare extended or not, and in what respects. This question makes central the concept of space, or more generally of ‘field’, ‘domain’. Unfortunately, the same word ‘extension’ is used also for the spread or location of athingin space. To dissociate the extension of a term, a logical notion, from the ontological notion of the spatial status of a thing, I introduce the new word ‘extention’. This coinage correlates, not with the ‘intension’ of terms—the logical correlate of ‘extension’—but with ‘intention’, a word that fortunately already has common currency, and reeks with connotations that have logical ties with ‘consciousness’. So, from here on, we have two dichotomies: intension-extension applying to terms, and intention-extention applying to things. Since terms are things, both sorts of considerations are relevant to them, the logical one and the ontological. Only the latter applies to, say, stones or persons, since these are not linguistic terms. (shrink)

Now, if you were asked, "Did you see what is in the picture?" and answered "No," your companion might reasonably say that you did not see the picture after all. This he could say on the strength of the other part of the concept of a picture. To see a picture in this sense is at least to see what it pictures, and this is what is "in" it. Your dog never sees the picture, in this sense. As for you, (...) you normally see, or look for, what is "in" the picture, tending to overlook the picture in the first sense; such that, having noticed what appears in the picture, you would have to go back for another look at it to answer questions about how high above the floor it was hung, what sort of frame it had, how the paint was put on the canvas, etc. (shrink)

The human body is ?transmogrified? (caricatured) under physicalistic descriptions of it. These imply that it is a contingent fact that rational beings such as human persons have the sort of bodies they do have. (Or, that, say, baboons are not rational creatures.) The human body is ?transfigured? under a description that makes it necessary to the performance of rational functions, including speaking a language. Any view of the matter that excludes this notion, either by reduction to the physicalist treatment or (...) simple denial, is inadequate. (shrink)

'Material thing' is a two-level concept. In 'first-order extension' - the field of perceptual experience - it is a 'body' that may 'body forth' (show, express) a 'content', like the bodies of persons or pictures. In 'second-order extension' -the physical field or space - it is a 'physical object' whose micro-constitution is the target of the reference of theoretical terms or formulae. As such, it has no content - nothing to 'express'. In the description of a material thing in first-order (...) extension, terms are used whose reference is fixed by ostension. (The picture's pigment is cracked, the person's eyes are blue.) The reference of theoretical terms - to the material thing in second-order extension - is fixed by their interrelationships in the theory. (shrink)

Picture-theories of visual perception usually maintain that, when something is simply seen, then the seer “has” a picture of the thing, the thing is the primary cause of the picture, the thing in itself is not the primary object of sight, and it is the picture itself that is the primary object of visual awareness.I shall argue in this essay that there are not only proper, but required, senses in which the first three of these propositions are true, but that (...) the fourth is always false or that one never simply sees the picture. Rather, what is thus seen is always in the picture, never the picture itself. The grounds on which I make this complex point will also undo the time-lag argument, at least in the standard interpretation of it associated with the false fourth proposition above. (shrink)

F. H. Bradley’s early essay “My Station and Its Duties” might as well have been entitled “The Philosopher’s Station and Its Duties.” The philosopher takes a god’s-eye view of man as finally realizing himself only in the philosophical consciousness of the Whole. Thus it is the philosopher’s duty to remind man qua man of this Whole as the ultimate determinant of all Duty. But, said Bradley, some-where between this ultimate on the one hand and the very local thing called the (...) family on the other is a man’s profession. This too is an ethereal or spiritual ‘organism’ within the all-inclusive one, with internal requirements of its own more special sort. I focus on this partial thing, attributing more autonomy to it than Bradley’s totalitarian view would tolerate. And the profession I select for anxious consideration is the teacher’s. It is the teacher’s station and its duties that are here my ultimate concern. What these duties have become is a serious matter, owing especially to recent techno-logical developments and what this is doing to people and to the things they live with, in our time. But the panacea I am going to recommend in this connection is rather the opposite of the one suggested by the numerous thinkers who are worried about this. (shrink)

SIMPLE SEEING I met Virgil Aldrich for the first time in the fall of 1969 when I arrived in Chapel Hill to attend a philosophy conference. My book, Seeing and Knowing,1 had just appeared a few months earlier.

A Few Notes on Aspect Seein g in Contemporar y Aesthetics In this paper author examines the problem of aspect seeing in reference to works of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Virgil C. Aldrich posing the question of whether they are applicable to experience of musical works. Drawing on examples from Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations, author maintains that hearing a melody as solemn, sad, et cetera is neither universal nor unequivocal. Musical work, author suggests, does not present itself spontaneously to the (...) listener. Conversely it must be sought and found. To speak of aspect hearing or hearing as (as aesthetic hearing) in reference to music, one must seek out those qualities of musical work that are perceptual but also individually grasped in contrast to what is given in experience through acculturation and training. (shrink)

This is a collection of papers, responses, and discussions that took place among philosophers and theologians of all persuasions at a conference held at Princeton. The lead papers are given by H. H. Price, William Alston, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Brand Blanshard on the respective topics of Religious Experience, Psychological Explanation of Religious Belief, the Compatibility of Understanding and Belief, and Irrationalism in Theology. The discussion of irrationalism begins with Blanshard's indictment of Barth and Barthian-style Theology, and provokes sharp responses on (...) both sides, but apparently little communication. Norris Clarke's response to MacIntyre's paper on Understanding and Belief could have been a fruitful point at which to deepen the discussion, but unfortunately MacIntyre did not publish a response to Clarke's criticism of his sociological theory of the relationship between belief and understanding. The section on psychology is deficient for want of a theologian to express an opposite viewpoint to the intra-party dialogue carried on by Alston and Malcolm. In addition to Clarke's response to MacIntyre, Virgil Aldrich's response to Price's paper on Religious Experience is quite incisive.—E. A. R. (shrink)

The sense-datum theory of perception has been under heavy attack in the last two decades. Recently, by way of counterattack, some of its defenders have accused what they take to be its chief rival, the “theory of appearing”, of various deficiencies. In particular, they have claimed that there are some perceptual, or pseudo-perceptual, situations, such as hallucinations and dreams, of which the theory of appearing can give no adequate account. For in these cases, they argue, the question, “What is it (...) that is appearing?”, can be given no satisfactory answer. The conclusion is then drawn that only a language containing sense-datum terms is generally adequate to our perceptual experience. Moreover this line of argument has been taken seriously by at least one partisan of the theory of appearing, Professor Virgil C. Aldrich, who has been driven to the expedient of suggesting that in these cases it is an image which appears. (shrink)