Sophia Perennis

Sophia Perennis

The Argument from Illusion and the Argument from Hallucination

Document Type : Original Article

Author
Iranian Institute of Philosophy
Abstract
The argument from illusion and the argument from hallucination refute the directness of visual perceptual experience. Although the first argument includes at least two disputable premises (the phenomenal principle and the common kind assumption), the second one just includes the common kind assumption. I will illustrate that the arguments, not only have different premises, but concern different subjects. The argument from illusion concerns the object of visual perceptual experience, but the argument from hallucination concerns the nature of the experience. On the basis of this consideration, I will propose the two different senses of directness. According to the first sense, an experience is direct, if it is directed to the world itself. But according to the second sense, an experience is direct, if the world itself, notably not its representation, constitutes the experience.
Keywords
Subjects

-        Anscombe, G. E. M. (2002). “The Intentionality of Sensation: A Grammatical Feature”, in Noë, A. and E. Thompson (eds.), Vision and Mind: Selected Readings in the Philosophy of Perception, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, pp: 55-75. Originally published in Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind: Collected Philosophical Papers (1965), Vol. III: pp. 3–20. Oxford: Blackwell.
-        Armstrong, D. M. (1968). A Materialist Theory of the Mind. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
-        Bermúdez, J. L. (2000). “Naturalized Sense Data”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 61: pp. 353–74.
-        Brewer, B. (2006). “Perception and Content”, European Journal of Philosophy, 14(2): pp. 165-181.
-        Brewer, B. (2011). Perception and its Objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-        Broad, C. D. (1925). The Mind and its Place in Nature. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
-        Casullo, A. (1987). “A Defense of Sense-Data”, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 48: pp. 45–61.
-        Crane, T. and C., French (2016). “The Problem of Perception”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), forthcoming URL = .
-        Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
-        Fish, W. (2009). Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion. New York: Oxford University Press.
-        Fish, W. (2010). Philosophy of Perception: A Contemporary Introduction. Routledge: Taylor & Francis.
-        French, C. and Walters, L. (2018). “The Invalidity of the Argument from Illusion”, American Philosophical Quarterly: pp. 357-364.
-        Garcia-Carpintero, M. (2001). “Sense-Data: The Sensible Approach”, Grazer Philosophische Studien, 62: pp. 17–63.
-        Hinton, J. M. (1973). Experiences: An Inquiry into Some Ambiguities. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
-        Hinton, J. M. (2009). “Visual Experiences”, in Byrne, A. and H. Logue (eds.), Disjunctivism: Contemporary Readings, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: pp. 1-11. Originally published in Mind (1967), 76(302): pp. 217-227.
-        Jackson, F. (1977). Perception: A Representative Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-        Lowe, E. J. (1992). "Experience and its Objects", in T. Crane (ed.), The Contents of Experience: Essays on Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 79–104.
-        Macpherson, F. (2013). “The Philosophy and Psychology of Hallucination: An Introduction”, in Macpherson, F. and D. Platchias (eds.), Hallucination: Philosophy and Psychology, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: pp. 1-38.
-        Martin, M. G. F. (2002). “The Transparency of Experience”, Mind & Language, 17(4): pp. 376-425.
-        Martin, M. G. F. (2006). “On Being Alienated”, in Gendler, T. and J. Hawthorne (eds.), Perceptual Experience, Oxford: Oxford University Press: pp. 354-410.
-        Martin, M. G. F. (2009a). “The Reality of Appearances”, in Byrne, A. and H. Logue (eds.), Disjunctivism: Contemporary Readings, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: pp. 91-115.
-        Martin, M. G. F. (2009b). “The Limits of Self-Awareness”, in Byrne, A. and H. Logue (eds.), Disjunctivism: Contemporary Readings, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: pp. 271-317. Originally published in Philosophical Studies (2004), 120: pp. 37-89.
-        McDowell, J. (1982). “Criteria, Defeasibility and Knowledge”, Proceeding of the British Academy, 68: pp. 455-479.
-        McDowell, J. (2008). “The Disjunctive Conception of Experience as Material for a Transcendental Argument”, in Haddock, A. and F. Macpherson (eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press: pp. 376-389.
-        McDowell, J. (2018). “Perceptual Experience and Empirical Rationality”, Analytic Philosophy, 59(1): pp. 89-98.
-        Moore, G. E. (1953). Some Main Problems of Philosophy. London: George, Allen and Unwin.
-        O'Shaughnessy, B. (2003). “Sense Data”, in B. Smith (ed.), John Searle. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 169–188.
-        Pitcher, G. (1970). A Theory of Perception. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
-        Price, H. H. (1950). Perception. 2nd edition. London: Methuen.
-        Robinson, H. (1994). Perception. London: Routledge.
-        Russell, B. (1912). The Problems of Philosophy. New York: Henry Holt and Company. Available online at www.archive.org.
-        Searle, J. (1983). Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-        Searle, J. (2015). Seeing Things as They Are: A Theory of Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
-        Siegel, S. (2010). The Contents of Visual Experience. New York: Oxford University Press.
-        Smith, A. D. (2002). The Problem of Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
-        Snowdon, P. (2005). “Some Reflections on an Argument from Hallucination”, Philosophical Topics 33(1): pp. 285-305.
-        Snowdon, P. (2008). “Hinton and the Origins of Disjunctivism”, in Haddock, A. and F. Macpherson (eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press: pp. 35-56.
-        Snowdon, P. (2009a). “Perception, Vision and Causation”, in Byrne, A. and H. Logue (eds.), Disjunctivism: Contemporary Readings, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: pp. 33-48. Originally published in Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society (1981), 81: pp. 175-192.
-        Snowdon, P. (2009b). “The Objects of Perceptual Experiences”, in Byrne, A. and H. Logue (eds.), Disjunctivism: Contemporary Readings, Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press: pp. 49-74. Originally published in Proceeding of the Aristotelian Society (1990), 105(1): pp. 129-150.