Discriminatory Capacities, Russell's Principle, and the Importance of Losing Sight of Objects (original) (raw)
Related papers
Trading on Identity and Singular Thought
Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 2021
On the traditional relationalist conception of singular thought, a thought has singular content when it is based on an 'information relation' to its object. Recent work rejects relationalism and suggests singular thoughts are distinguished from descriptive thoughts by their inferential role: only thoughts with singular content can be employed in 'direct' inferences, or inferences that 'trade on identity'. Firstly this view is insufficiently clear, because it conflates two distinct ideas-one about a kind of inference, the other a kind of process that grounds inferences-under the title, 'trading on identity'. Secondly, this leaves us without a notion that can be used as an alternative to relationalism about singular thought. The first notion is no more applicable to singular than to descriptive thought. The second may help us better understand singular thought, but does so, not by replacing the view that singular thoughts are information-based, but by helping us understand the nature of informationbased thought. 1. Introduction Russell [1905, 1910, 1912] introduced a distinction between thoughts with singular and descriptive content. It came with an accompanying distinction between 'knowledge by acquaintance' and 'knowledge by description'. The idea was that having a thought with singular content was something that happened in virtue of bearing a special, epistemic-access relation to a thing. Without this relation, one could think of a thing only 'by description'. Thus, Russell's epistemic distinction explained or accounted for his semantic distinction: it told us what having a singular thought amounted to. The Kripkean philosophical revolution of the 1970s-80s made Russell's semantic distinction between thoughts with singular and descriptive content orthodoxy, but came with a challenge to his conception of it. In the wake of Kripke [1980] and others, it seemed to many that we could think non-descriptive thoughts about ordinary objects-and ones with which we lack special, intimate, epistemic-access relation at that. Among those who think there is a legitimate category of singular thoughts, it is (more or less) agreed that the distinction between singular and descriptive thought should come with some account of what-epistemically, causally, cognitively, etc.-unifies and distinguishes singular thoughts. Beyond this, the debate about what having a singular, as opposed to descriptive, thought amounts to remains unresolved. Recent approaches fall into two broad camps. The first weakens Russell's acquaintance requirement into the claim that singular thoughts are, by nature, information-based thoughts: they are about their objects in virtue of some causal-informational relation (like perception, testimony, etc.) between their thinker and what they're about. Inspired by Bach's [1987] distinction between relational and satisfactional aboutness, we'll call these theorists relationalists about singular thought. The second camp rejects the claim that all singular thoughts are based on causal-informational relations to their
Singular Propositions and Singular Thoughts
Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic
The core of the debate between Fregeans and Russellians in the philosophy of language concerns the content of object-dependent propositions, or how we ought to individuate and semantically represent the content of propositions that are about specific individuals. This essay is an investigation of the contemporary status of this debate. My aim is to show how the causal theorists' picture of reference determination entails the need for both Fregean and Russellian conceptions of propositional content in the study of mind and language, and to investigate some of the consequences of this position.
The Role of Attention in Russell's Theory of Knowledge
British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 2013
In his Problems of Philosophy, Bertrand Russell distinguished knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge of truths. This paper argues for a new interpretation of the relationship between these two species of knowledge. I argue that knowledge by acquaintance of an object neither suffices for knowledge that one is acquainted with the object, nor puts a subject in a position to know that she is acquainted with the object. These conclusions emerge from a thorough examination of the central role played by attention in Russell's theory of knowledge. Attention bridges the gap between knowledge by acquaintance and our capacity to form judgements about the objects of acquaintance.
This thesis aims to provide a compelling and distinctive response to the Problem of Consciousness. This is achieved by offering a bipartite analysis of the epistemic gap at the heart of that problem, and by building upon the hypothesis that the apparent problem is symptomatic of our limited conception of the physical. Chapter 1 introduces the problem. The key question is whether phenomenal consciousness is onticly dependent on the physical, or onticly independent of it. There are powerful arguments for the Primitivist view that consciousness is independent of the physical. These arguments rest on the apparent epistemic gap between the physical and the phenomenal. I propose that this apparent gap must be understood as a composite of two deeper conceptual gaps pertaining to the subjective character and qualitative character of consciousness respectively. The ‘–tivity gap’ claims that physical states are objective, phenomenal states are subjective and that there is no entailment from the objective to the subjective. The ‘–trinsicality gap’ claims that physical properties are extrinsic (structural), that phenomenal qualities are intrinsic (non-structural) and that there is no entailment from the extrinsic to the intrinsic. After refining the case for Primitivism, I consider the compelling reasons for rejecting Primitivism in favour of Physicalism. The challenge posed by the Problem of Consciousness is to resolve this antinomy between Primitivism and Physicalism. In Chapter 2 I consider standard responses to the problem. The failings of these positions lead me to introduce three criteria that an adequate response must satisfy. I reject the view that Primitivism can be salvaged, and hold that a satisfactory response to the problem must protect Physicalism. I reject standard ‘Type-A’ responses according to which there is no epistemic gap between the physical and the phenomenal, and argue that a satisfactory response cannot deny the manifest reality of phenomenal consciousness. Finally, I reject ‘Type-B’ responses according to which the epistemic gap does not entail ontic distinctness. I hold that if Physicalism is true, the entailment from the physical facts to the phenomenal facts must be knowable a priori for an epistemically ideal subject. Chapter 3 evaluates a non-standard Type-A response to the Problem of Consciousness which promises to satisfy all three criteria. According to Stoljar’s Epistemic View (EV), consciousness only seems inexplicable in physical terms because we have a limited conception of the physical. I argue that EV should be supported iff two demanding challenges can be met: the Relevance Condition requires adequate reason to believe that unknown physical properties could address the –tivity gap and the –trinsicality gap. The Integration Condition requires adequate reason to believe that there is a specific blind-spot in our current conception of the physical that is plausibly occupied by properties that perform the requisite explanatory role. To satisfy these conditions, the advocate of EV must make positive claims about the content of our proposed ignorance. In Chapter 4 I argue that EV stands or falls with the plausibility of the Russellian Ignorance Hypothesis (RIH). According to RIH, we have no concepts of the intrinsic properties of physical entities, and those intrinsic properties are integral to the physical explanation of consciousness. I argue that we are indeed conceptually ignorant of intrinsic physical properties. I also argue that RIH meets the Integration Condition, and goes some way to satisfying the Relevance Condition. RIH plausibly undermines the –trinsicality gap by showing that some physical properties are intrinsic, though they are beyond our current conception. The apparent gap is then an illusion resulting from the fact that all known physical properties are extrinsic. RIH fails, however, to address the –tivity gap. I conclude that no version of EV can offer a full response to the Problem of Consciousness. In Chapter 5 I explore an entirely different kind of response to the Problem of Consciousness. Representationalism claims that consciousness is explicable in terms of intentional properties, and that intentional properties are explicable in terms of physical properties. I argue that standard Representationalist proposals are unable to account for the qualitative character of conscious states, and diagnose this failure in terms of the –trinsicality gap. However, the prospects for a Representationalist account of subjective character are more promising. Specifically, Kriegel’s Self-Representationalism holds that a mental state is a phenomenal state in virtue of suitably representing itself. I argue that this proposal plausibly addresses the –tivity gap. RIH and Self-Representationalism each deal with one of the two apparent conceptual gaps between the physical and the phenomenal, but not the other. In Chapter 6 I develop a hybrid proposal that combines the best of both positions. The ‘Neo-Russellian Ignorance Hypothesis’ (NRIH) claims that a mental state is a phenomenal state at all in virtue of suitably representing itself, and has its qualitative character in virtue of the intrinsic physical properties involved in its implementation. I expand this claim and defend it against a number of potential criticisms. I also explore the relationship between its two components, suggesting that they are each founded on a common epistemic insight. I argue that NRIH successfully addresses the –tivity and –trinsicality gaps and, moreover, that it provides a compelling account of why consciousness appears to be inexplicable in physical terms. I conclude that NRIH offers a powerful response to the Problem of Consciousness that successfully undermines the case for Primitivism. Furthermore, I conclude that NRIH has substantial advantages over competing attempted responses, and offers the best possible way of capitalising on the insights of EV and Representationalism.
Object-Dependent Thought Without Illusion
European Journal of Philosophy
This thesis targets the part of Gareth Evans's and John McDowell's view of singular thought which involves the claim that there can be illusions of thought. Singular thought is, according to Evans and McDowell, an object-dependent thought-content; such thought-content could not be entertained unless the object it is about exists. Nevertheless, in a case of perceptual hallucination, where a subject mistakenly takes it that there is an object in front of him or her, Evans and McDowell think that it can seem to a subject exactly as though he or she is having an object-dependent thought, although the subject is in fact not thinking at all due to the absence of any object to think about. The thesis argues for a rejection of this idea of illusions of objectdependent thought. It is further argued that the idea of illusions of thought can be eliminated from Evans's and McDowell's view without abandoning their fundamental insight about how singular thought-content is object-dependent. Following specifically McDowell's development of the view, it is suggested that singular thought is about the world in virtue of how things cognitively appear to the subject. It is suggested that in an alleged case of illusion of thought, the subject has an object-dependent thought about an object whose existence in part is due to the mind's directedness in that very episode of singular thinking. Furthermore, Evans's and McDowell's respective views of acquaintance are criticised, and an idea about acquaintance as awareness of a wider range of objects than just perceivable objects is put forward. In general, the thesis outlines a revised version of Evans's and McDowell's view, a version according to which singular thought, although externalistically individuated, is transparent to the thinker. I am deeply grateful to my supervisors Mark Eli Kalderon, Rory Madden, and José Zalabardo for their insightful guidance, encouragement and patience in helping me with the development of this PhD thesis. I also thank my examiners, Tim Crane and Mark Textor, for helpful written comments and discussion. The material has benefitted from feedback in connection with presentations of earlier versions of it. In particular, the comments from the audience at the Open Sessions of the Joint Sessions of the Aristotelian Society and the Mind Association at the University of Stirling in July 2012 have been important to the development of chapter two. I also owe thanks to the audiences and my respondents at the 16 th BPPA
Singular thoughts and singular propositions
Philosophical Studies, 2011
A singular thought about an object o is one that is directly about o in a characteristic way-grasp of that thought requires having some special epistemic relation to the object o, and the thought is ontologically dependent on o. One account of the nature of singular thought exploits a Russellian Structured Account of Propositions, according to which contents are represented by means of structured n-tuples of objects, properties, and functions. A proposition is singular, according to this framework, if and only if it contains an object as a constituent. One advantage of the framework of Russellian Structured propositions is that it promises to provide a metaphysical basis for the notion of a singular thought about an object, grounding it in terms of constituency. In this paper, we argue that the attempt to ground the peculiar features of singular thoughts in terms of metaphysical constituency fails, and draw some consequences of our discussion for other debates.
Cognitivism: A New theory of Singular Thought?
Mind and Language, 2012
In a series of recent articles, Robin Jeshion has developed a theory of singular thought which she calls ‘cognitivism’. In this article, I raise a series of concerns about Jeshion’s theory, and suggest that the relevant data can be accommodated by a version of acquaintance theory that distinguishes unsuccessful thoughts of singular form from successful singular thoughts, and in addition allows for ‘trace-based’ acquaintance.