An Argument against Intentionalism as a Theory of Perception

Öz

The problem of perception arises in hallucination and illusion: if the object we seem to confront is not there, what, if anything, is given in experience, and what constitutes its phenomenal character? Intentionalism is often presented as a fourth rival to sense-data theory, naïve realism, and adverbialism. This paper rejects that orthodoxy and defends the claim that intentionalism offers no distinctive solution to the problem of perception: every solution it can provide collapses into an option already available to non-intentional theories. The argument tracks a basic divide between views that posit an immediate object (or some entity constituting phenomenal character) and views that deny any such object. On the first horn, intentionalism structurally coincides with extant accounts that postulate non-ordinary objects or uninstantiated property-complexes; on the second, it collapses into a version of adverbialism. The paper thereby clarifies the dialectic, provides a systematic taxonomy, and undermines the “fourth option” claim.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• problem of perception
• intentionalism
• hallucination
• illusion
• adverbialism
• naive realism

Algı Kuramı Olarak Yönelimselcilik Aleyhine Bir Argüman

Öz

Algı problemi, özellikle halüsinasyon ve illüzyon örneklerinde, fenomenal karakterin ne tarafından oluşturulduğu sorusu olarak belirir: Karşımızda sandığımız nesne yoksa, deneyimde bize ne sunulur? Literatürde yönelimselcilik çoğu kez duyu-verisi kuramı, naif gerçekçilik ve zarfçılığa dördüncü bir alternatif olarak sunulur. Bu makale bu ortodoksiye itiraz etmekte ve şu temel iddiayı savunmaktadır: Yönelimselcilik algı problemine özgün bir çözüm sunmaz; sunabileceği tüm çözümler, yönelimsel olmayan kuramların zaten benimseyebileceği seçeneklere indirgenir. Argüman, (i) dolaysız bir objeyi (veya fenomenal karakteri oluşturan bir varlığı) kabul eden yaklaşımlarla (ii) dolaysız objeyi reddeden yaklaşımlar arasındaki ayrımı izler. İlk durumda yönelimselcilik, sıradan olmayan bir obje ya da gerçekleşmemiş özellik-kompleksi postüle eden mevcut kuramlarla yapısal olarak çakışır; ikinci durumda ise zarfçılığın bir versiyonuna çöker. Sonuç olarak yönelimselcilik, rakiplerine gerçek bir alternatif olamaz. Böylece makale, tartışmayı “yönelimsel içerik” etrafındaki belirsizliklerden arındırarak, algı kuramlarının algı problemine verdikleri yanıtları sistematik bir taksonomi içinde karşılaştırmakta, literatürdeki “dördüncü seçenek” iddiasını zayıflatmakta ve bunun metodolojik sonuçlarını da ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• algı problemi
• yönelimselcilik
• halüsinasyon
• illüzyon
• zarfçılık
• naif gerçekçilik

Kaynakça

1. Anscombe, G. E. M. (1965). “The Intentionality of Sensation: A Grammatical Feature.” R. J. Butler (Der.), Analytical Philosophy: Second Series içinde (s. 158-180). Oxford: Blackwell.
2. Block, N. (1990). “Inverted Earth.” Philosophical Perspectives, 4: 53-79.
3. Block, N. (1996). “Mental Paint and Mental Latex.” Philosophical Issues, 7: 19-49.
4. Boghossian, P. A. ve Velleman, J. D. (1989). “Colour as a Secondary Quality.” Mind, 98(389): 81-103.
5. Brewer, B. (2007). “Perception and Its Objects.” Philosophical Studies, 132(1): 87-97.
6. Burge, T. (1986). “Cartesian Error and the Objectivity of Perception.” P. Pettit ve J. McDowell (Der.), Subject, Thought, and Context içinde (s. 117-136). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
7. Byrne, A. (2001). “Intentionalism Defended.” The Philosophical Review, 110(2): 199-240.
8. Campbell, J. (2002). Reference and Consciousness. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

9. Crane, T. (2001). Elements of Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10. Crane, T. (2006). “Is There a Perceptual Relation?” T. S. Gendler ve J. Hawthorne (Der.), Perceptual Experience içinde (s. 126-146). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
11. Crane, T. ve French, C. (2015, 31 Aralık). “The Problem of Perception.” E. N. Zalta (Der.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition) içinde. Alındığı URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/perception-problem
12. Dretske, F. (2000). Perception, Knowledge and Belief: Selected Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Fish, W. (2010). Philosophy of Perception: A Contemporary Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.
14. Forrest, P. (2005). “Universals as Sense-Data.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 71(3): 622-631.
15. Harman, G. (1990). “The Intrinsic Quality of Experience.” Philosophical Perspectives, 4: 31-52.
16. Hilbert, D. (2004). “Hallucination, Sense-Data and Direct Realism.” Philosophical Studies, 120(1-3): 185-191.
17. Huemer, M. (2011, 25 Şubat). “Sense-Data.” E. N. Zalta (Der.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition) içinde. Alındığı URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/sense-data
18. Johnston, M. (2004). “The Obscure Object of Hallucination.” Philosophical Studies, 120(1-3): 113-183.
19. Kriegel, U. (2011). The Sources of Intentionality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
20. Le Morvan, P. (2008). “Sensory Experience and Intentionalism.” Philosophy Compass, 3(4): 685-702.
21. Loar, B. (2017). “Transparent Experience and the Availability of Qualia.” K. Balog ve S. Beardman (Der.), Consciousness and Meaning içinde (s. 273-290). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22. Lycan, W. G. (1996). Consciousness and Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Lycan, W. G. (2019, 12 Ağustos). “Representational Theories of Consciousness.” E. N. Zalta (Der.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2019 Edition) içinde. Alındığı URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2019/entries/consciousness-representational
24. Macpherson, F. (2014). “Is the Sense-Data Theory a Representationalist Theory?” Ratio, 27(4): 369-392.
25. Martin, M. G. F. (2002). “The Transparency of Experience.” Mind and Language, 17(4): 376-425.
26. Meinong, A. (1960). “On the Theory of Objects (Translation of ‘Über Gegenstandstheorie’, 1904).” R. M. Chisholm (Der.), Realism and the Background of Phenomenology içinde (s. 76-117). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
27. Moore, G. E. (1903). “The Refutation of Idealism.” Mind, 12: 433-453.
28. Nanay, B. (2012). “Perceiving Tropes.” Erkenntnis, 77(1): 1-14.
29. Nanay, B. (2015). “The Representationalism versus Relationalism Debate: Explanatory Contextualism about Perception.” European Journal of Philosophy, 23(2): 321-336.
30. Nida-Rümelin, M. (2011). “Phenomenal Presence and Perceptual Awareness: A Subjectivist Account of Perceptual Openness to the World.” Philosophical Issues, 21(1): 352-383.
31. Nudds, M. (2009). “Recent Work in Perception: Naive Realism and Its Opponents.” Analysis, 69(2): 334-346.
32. Papineau, D. (2014). “Sensory Experience and Representational Properties.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 114(1 Pt 1): 1-33.
33. Parsons, T. (1980). Nonexistent Objects. New Haven: Yale University Press.
34. Pautz, A. (2007). “Intentionalism and Perceptual Presence.” Philosophical Perspectives, 21(1): 495-541.
35. Pautz, A. (2020a). “Representationalism about Consciousness.” U. Kriegel (Der.), The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Consciousness içinde (s. 404-437). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36. Pautz, A. (2020b). “The Puzzle of the Laws of Appearance.” Philosophical Issues, 30(1): 257-272.
37. Price, H. H. (1932). Perception. London: Methuen & Co.
38. Priest, G. (2005). Towards Non-Being: The Logic and Metaphysics of Intentionality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
39. Robinson, H. (1994). Perception. London ve New York: Routledge.
40. Schellenberg, S. (2011). “Perceptual Content Defended.” Nous, 45(4): 714-750.
41. Schellenberg, S. (2014). “The Relational and Representational Character of Perceptual Experience.” B. Brogaard (Der.), Does Perception Have Content? içinde (s. 199-219). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
42. Siegel, S. (2010a). The Contents of Visual Experience. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
43. Siegel, S. (2010b, 19 Temmuz). “The Contents of Perception.” E. N. Zalta (Der.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition) içinde. Alındığı URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/perception-contents
44. Siewert, C. (2004). “Is Experience Transparent?” Philosophical Studies, 117(1-2): 15-41.
45. Stoljar, D. (2004). “The Argument from Diaphanousness.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 34(1): 341-390.
46. Travis, C. (2004). “The Silence of the Senses.” Mind, 113(449): 57-94.
47. Tye, M. (1992). “Visual Qualia and Visual Content.” T. Crane (Der.), The Contents of Experience içinde (s. 158-176). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48. Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, Color, and Content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
49. Tye, M. (2014). “Transparency, Qualia Realism and Representationalism.” Philosophical Studies, 170(1): 39-57.
50. Valberg, J. J. (1992a). The Puzzle of Experience. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
51. Valberg, J. J. (1992b). “The Puzzle of Experience.” T. Crane (Der.), The Contents of Experience içinde (s. 18-47). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.