Simone Stancampiano, “L’eredità del...
Piet Strydom, “Three Interpretations of...
Marc Champagne, “Illusory Signs as Frustrated Expectations: Undoing Descartes’ Overblown Response,” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 79, no. 3 (2023): 1073–96, https://doi.org/10.17990/RPF/2023_79_3_1073.
| Item Type | Journal Article |
|---|---|
| Author | Marc Champagne |
| Abstract | Descartes held that it is impossible to make true statements about what we perceive, but I go over alleged cases of illusory experience to show why such a skeptical conclusion (and recourse to God) is overblown. The overreaction, I contend, stems from an insufficient awareness of the habitual expectations brought to any given experience. These expectations manifest themselves in motor terms, as perception constantly prompts and updates an embodied posture of readiness for what might come next. Such habitual anticipations work best when they efface themselves, so it is easy to blame perception when our expectations get frustrated. I illustrate this misdirected blame with the example of a stick partially in water: it is only because we expect the stick to be straight that its appearance as bent is deemed problematic. I thus conclude that, if we factor in the habitual interpretations operative in perception and switch to a processual view that allows practical engagement, we can deflate the worries that led Descartes to rule out perceptual truths. Distancing myself from the naïve “sign” of folk semiotics, my critique draws inspiration from the triadic semiotic model developed in some late medieval schools of Portugal. |
| Date | 2023 |
| Language | English |
| Rights | © 2023 Aletheia - Associação Científica e Cultural |
| Volume | 79 |
| Pages | 1073-1096 |
| Publication | Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia |
| DOI | 10.17990/RPF/2023_79_3_1073 |
| Issue | 3 |
| ISSN | 0870-5283 ; 2183-461X |
| Date Added | 11/1/2023, 1:42:22 AM |
| Modified | 11/1/2023, 1:56:25 AM |
Bain, Alexander. Mental and Moral Science: A Compendium of Psychology and Ethics. London: Longmans, Green and Company, 1872.
Balsemão, Edmundo. “Categorias e semiosis: Notas introdutórias ao pensamento do individual em C. S. Peirce.” Revista Filosófica de Coimbra 2, no. 3 (1993): 115–168. http://hdl.handle.net/10316.2/33664.
Bellucci, Francesco. Peirce’s Speculative Grammar: Logic as Semiotics. New York: Routledge, 2018.
Blakemore, Sarah-Jayne, Daniel Wolpert, and Chris Frith. “Why Can’t You Tickle Yourself?” Neuroreport 11, no. 11 (2000): R11–R16. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001756-200008030-00002.
Boler, John. “Peirce and Medieval Thought.” In The Cambridge Companion to Peirce, edited by Cheryl Misak, 58–86. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Brandom, Robert B. Making it Explicit: Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994.
Brunning, Jacqueline. “Genuine Triads and Teridentitiy.” In Studies in the Logic of Charles Sanders Peirce, edited by Nathan Houser, Don D. Roberts and James van Evra, 252–263. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997.
Carvalho, Mário Santiago de. “Medieval Influences in the Coimbra Commentaries.” Patristica et Mediaevalia 20 (1999): 19–37. https://estudogeral.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/91190/1/Medieval_influences_in_the_Coimbra_Comme.pdf.
Carvalho, Mário Santiago de. The Coimbra Jesuit Aristotelian Course. Coimbra: Coimbra University Press, 2018.
Champagne, Marc. “What Anchors Semiosis: How Descartes Changed the Subject.” Recherches sémiotiques / Semiotic Inquiry 28–29, no. 1–3 (2008): 183–197. https://doi.org/10.7202/1005869ar.
Champagne, Marc. “Semiotics.” Oxford Bibliographies in Philosophy, edited by Duncan Pritchard, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780195396577-0179.
Champagne, Marc. “Disjunctivism and the Ethics of Disbelief.” Philosophical Papers 44, no. 2 (2015): 139–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/05568641.2015.1056964.
Champagne, Marc. “Poinsot versus Peirce on Merging with Reality by Sharing a Quality.” Versus: Quaderni di studi semiotici 120 (2015): 31–43. http://versus.dfc.unibo.it/arc1b.php?articolo=845.
Champagne, Marc. “God, Human Memory, and the Certainty of Geometry: An Argument against Descartes.” Philosophy and Theology 28, no. 2 (2016): 299–310. https://doi.org/10.5840/philtheol2016102158.
Champagne, Marc. Consciousness and the Philosophy of Signs. Cham: Springer, 2018.
Champagne, Marc, and Ahti-Veikko Pietarinen. “Why Images cannot be Arguments, but Moving Ones Might.” Argumentation 34, no. 2 (2020): 207–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-019-09484-0.
Chediak, Karla. “Intentionalism and the Problem of the Content of Perception.” Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia 72, no. 2–3 (2016): 519–530. https://doi.org/10.17990/RPF/2016_72_2_0519.
Clark, Andy. “Whatever Next? Predictive Brains, Situated Agents, and the Future of Cognitive Science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36, no. 3 (2013): 181–204. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477.
Conimbricenses. The Conimbricenses: Some Questions on Signs. Translated by John P. Doyle. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001.
Crippen, Matthew. “Embodied Cognition and Perception: Dewey, Science and Skepticism.” Contemporary Pragmatism 14, no. 1 (2017): 112–134. https://doi.org/10.1163/18758185-01401007.
Deely, John N. Four Ages of Understanding. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2001.
Deely, John N. “‘Semeion’ to Sign by way of Signum: On the Interplay of Translation and Interpretation in the Establishment of Semiotics.” Semiotica 148, no. 1–4 (2004): 187–227. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2004.006.
De Rosa, Raffaella. Descartes and the Puzzle of Sensory Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Descartes, René. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume 2. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984.
Descartes, René. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume 1. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, and Dugald Murdoch. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985.
Descartes, René. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Volume 3. Translated by John Cottingham, Robert Stoothoff, Dugald Murdoch, and Anthony Kenny. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Descartes, René. Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy. Translated by Donald A. Cress. Indianapolis: Hackett, 1998.
Eco, Umberto. A Theory of Semiotics. Translated by David Osmond-Smith. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1976.
Favela, Luis H., and Anthony Chemero. “An Ecological Account of Visual ‘Illusions.’” Florida Philosophical Review 16, no. 1 (2016): 68–93. https://cah.ucf.edu/fpr/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/Favela_and_Chemero-1.pdf.
Fisch, Max H. “Alexander Bain and the Genealogy of Pragmatism.” Journal of the History of Ideas 15, no. 3 (1954): 413–444. https://doi.org/10.2307/2707763.
Forster, Paul. Peirce and the Threat of Nominalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Fuchs, Thomas. “The Not-Yet-Conscious: Protentional Consciousness and the Emergence of the New.” Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-022-09869-9.
Gatto, Alfredo. “Descartes and the Coimbra Commentaries: A Critical Source of the Cartesian Meditations.” Quaestio 18 (2018): 557–569. https://doi.org/10.1484/J.QUAESTIO.5.118134.
Gibson, James J. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. New York: Taylor and Francis, 2014.
Gramigna, Remo. Augustine’s Theory of Signs, Signification, and Lying. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2020.
Hume, David. Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding and Other Writings. Edited by Stephen Buckle. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Kelley, David C. The Evidence of the Senses: A Realist Theory of Perception. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1986.
Luisi, Maria. “Percept and Perceptual Judgment in Peirce’s Phenomenology.” Cognitio-Estudos: Revista Eletrônica de Filosofia 3, no. 1 (2006): 65–70. https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/cognitio/article/view/5476/3923.
Maitzen, Stephen. “How not to Argue from Science to Skepticism.” International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 4, no. 1 (2014): 21–35. https://doi.org/10.1163/22105700-03031081.
McDowell, John H. Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.
Meyers, Robert G. “Peirce on Cartesian Doubt.” Transactions of the Charles S. Peirce Society 3, no. 1 (1967): 13–23. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319490.
Morris, Charles W. Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1938.
Olsson, Erik J. “Not Giving the Skeptic a Hearing: Pragmatism and Radical Doubt.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 70, no. 1 (2005): 98–126. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2005.tb00507.x.
Ong-Van-Cung, Kim-Sang. “The ‘Argument from Illusion’ and the Cartesian Philosophy of Ideas.” Revue de métaphysique et de morale 42, no. 2 (2004): 217–233. https://doi.org/10.3917/rmm.042.0217.
Pasnau, Robert. Theories of Cognition in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Peirce, Charles Sanders. The Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce. Edited by Charles Hartshorne, Paul Weiss, and Arthur W. Burks. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931–58.
Poinsot, John. Tractatus de Signis: The Semiotic of John Poinsot. Translated by John N. Deely and Ralph A. Powell. South Bend, IN: St. Augustine’s Press, 2013.
Quine, Willard V. O. “The Nature of Natural Knowledge.” In Mind and Language, edited by Samuel Guttenplan, 67–81. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
Quine, Willard V. O., and Joseph S. Ullian. The Web of Belief. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Rorty, Richard. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1979.
Russell, Bertrand. Our Knowledge of the External World. New York: Routledge, 2009.
