Deneyimsel Şeffaflığın Türleri

Year 2019, Volume: 2 Issue: 1, 1 - 31, 30.06.2019

Erhan Demircioglu

Abstract

Öz: Özel
olarak “deneyimin şeffaflığı”, genel olarak ise “içgörü” üzerine
değerlendirmeler çağdaş zihin felsefesinde merkezi bir role sahiptir. Buna
karşın, bana öyle geliyor ki, deneyimin şeffaflığı ve içgörü üzerine düşünceler
tam bir netliğe kavuşmuş olmaktan uzaktır: farklı şeffaflık iddiaları
arasındaki ayrımlar yeterince fark edilmemiş ve içgörünün kendi başına neyi
destekleyip desteklemediği açıklıkla aydınlığa kavuşturulmamış durumdadır. Bu
makalenin temel amacı, farklı şeffaflık iddiaları arasındaki zengin çeşitliliği
ortaya serip tartışmaya kavramsal netlik kazandırmaktır. Makale üç temel
bölümden oluşmaktadır. Birinci bölüm, Moore’un içgörü ve deneyimin şeffaflığı
üzerine görüşlerini tartışmaktadır. Genel kanının aksine, Moore’un deneyimin
şeffaf olmadığını göstermeye çalıştığını iddia edeceğim. İkinci bölüm,
Harman’ın şeffaflık tezinin fenomenist şeffaflık tezinden farklarına işaret
etmektedir. Üçüncü bölüm ise, Harman’ın şeffaflık tezinin iki ayrı versiyonu
olan “deneyimsel-eylem şeffaflığı” ve “zihinsel-tasvir şeffaflığı” arasında
ayrım yapmaktadır.

Keywords

deneyimin şeffaflığı, içgörü, deneyimin eylem-nesne modeli, temsilcilik, George Edward Moore, Gilbert Harman

Varieties of Experiential Transparency

Abstract

Abstract: Considerations on the transparency of experience
in particular, and introspection in general, play a central role in the
contemporary philosophy of mind. However, despite various attempts to rectify
matters, it seems to me that appeals to transparency and introspection are
sometimes mired in confusion: neither there is an explicit and general
recognition of the fact that different transparency claims are often treated as
one and the same, nor is there sufficiently robust clarity in what
introspection itself can support. The central aim of this paper is to achieve
some conceptual clarity by bringing to the surface for examination the rich
variety of different experiential transparency claims that are left implicit in
the literature. The paper falls into three main sections. Section 2 discusses
Moore’s views on introspection and the transparency of experience. Contra
common opinion, I argue inter alia
that Moore is concerned with showing that experience is not transparent (in a sense to be specified). Section 3 introduces
“Harmanian transparency”, as it arises in the context of the debate between
representationism and phenomenism, and distinguishes it from “phenomenist
transparency.” Section 4 distinguishes two varieties of Harmanian transparency,
i.e. “experiencing-act transparency” and “mental-paint transparency.”

Keywords

transparency of experience, introspection, act-object model of experience, representationism, George Edward Moore, Gilbert Harman

References

• Alston, William (1999). “Back to the Theory of Appearing.” Philosophical Perspectives, 13: 181-203.
• Berkeley, George. (1999). Principles of Human Knowledge and Three Dialogues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Block, Ned (1995). “Mental Paint and Mental Latex.” Philosophical Issues, 7: 19-49.
• Boghossian, P. and Velleman, D. (1989). “Color as a Secondary Quality.” Mind, 98: 81-103.
• Brewer, Bill (2006). “Perception and Content.” European Journal of Philosophy, 14(2): 165-181.
• Broad, Charlie D. (1952). “Some Elementary Reflections on Sense-Perception.” Philosophy, 27(100): 3-17.
• Butchvarov, Panayot (1998). Skepticism About the External World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Campbell, John (2002). Reference and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Chisholm, Roderick M. (1957). Perceiving: A Philosophical Study. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
• Coates, Paul (2007). The Metaphysics of Perception. New York: Routledge.
• Crane, Tim (2000). “Introspection, Intentionality, and the Transparency of Experience.” Philosophical Topics, 28(2): 49-67.
• Crane, Tim (2006). “Is There a Perceptual Relation?” In T. Szabo Gendler & John Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual Experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Demircioglu, Erhan (2012). “Christopher Hill: Consciousness.” Erkenntnis, 77(1): 149-154.
• Demircioglu, Erhan (2015). “Naïve Realism and Phenomenological Directness: Reply to Millar.” Philosophical Studies, 173(7): 1897-1910. DOI 10.1007/s11098-015-0583-1.
• Ducasse, Curt J. (1951). Nature, Mind, and Death. La Salle, IL: Open Court.
• Farkas, Katalin (2010). “Independent Intentional Objects.” In T. Czarnecki, K. Kijanija-Placek, O. Poller & Jan Wolenski (Eds.), The Analytical Way. London: College Publications.
• Harman, Gilbert (1990). “The Intrinsic Quality of Experience.” Philosophical Perspectives, 4: 31-52.
• Hellie, B. (2007). “That Which Makes the Sensation of Blue a Mental Fact: Moore on Phenomenal Relationism.” European Journal of Philosophy, 15(3): 334-366.
• Hill, C. (2009). Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Place.
• Hume, David (2000[1748]). An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Jackson, F. (2009). “The Knowledge Argument, Diaphanousness, Representationalism.” In T. Alter & S. Walter (Eds.), Phenomenal Concepts and Phenomenal Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Kennedy, M. (2009). “Heirs of Nothing: The Implications of Transparency.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79(3): 574-604.
• Kind, A. (2003). “What’s So Transparent About Transparency?” Philosophical Studies, 115: 225-244.
• Kriegel, U. (2007). “Intentional Inexistence and Phenomenal Intentionality.” Philosophical Perspectives, 21(1): 307-340.
• Loar, B. (2003). “Transparent Experience and the Availability of Qualia.” In Q. Smith & A. Jokic (Eds.), Consciousness: New Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Macpherson, F. (2014). “Is the Sense-Data Theory a Representationalist Theory?” Ratio, 27(4): 369-392.
• Martin, M. G. F. (2002). “The Transparency of Experience.” Mind & Language, 17(4): 376-425.
• Millar, B. (2014). “The Phenomenological Directness of Perceptual Experience.” Philosophical Studies, 170: 235-255.
• Moore, G. E. (1903). “The Refutation of Idealism.” Mind, 12(48): 433-453.
• Moore, G. E. (1922). Philosophical Studies. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Papineau, D. (2014). “Sensory Experience and Representational Properties.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 114(1): 1-33. Raleigh, T. (2009). “Understanding How Experience “Seems”.” European Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 5(2): 67-78.
• Stoljar, D. (2004). “The Argument From Diaphanousness.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 34(1): 341-390.
• Strawson, P. F. (1979). Perception and Its Objects. In G. F. MacDonald (Ed.), Perception and Identity. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• Travis, C. (2004). “The Silence of the Senses.” Mind, 113(449): 57-94.
• Tye, M. (1984). “The Adverbial Theory: A Defense of Sellars Against Jackson.” The Philosophical Review, 93: 195-225.
• Tye, M. (1994). “Qualia, Content, and the Inverted Spectrum.” Nous, 28(2): 159-183.
• Tye, M. (2002). Consciousness, Color, and Content. London: MIT Press.
• Tye, M. (2009). Consciousness Revisited: Materialism without Concepts. London: MIT Press.
• Tye, M. (2015). “Qualia.” In Edward N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/
• Van Gulick, J. (2015). “Troubles for Radical Transparency.” In T. Horgan, M. Sabates & D. Sosa (Eds.), Qualia and Mental Causation in a Physical World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.