Sensation and the Grammar of Life

Anscombe’s published writings, lectures, and notes on sensation offer material for a sophisticated critique of philosophical theories of perception and a novel analysis of the concept of sensation. Her philosophy of perception begins with the traditional question, ‘What are the objects of sensation?’, but the response is a grammatical rather than ontological enquiry. What, she asks, are the characteristics of the grammatical object of sensation verbs? Anscombe’s answer is: sensation verbs take ‘intentional objects’, where an ‘intentional object’ is a description which has the characteristics of the concept of intention—characteristics elucidated in detail in her Intention. This allows Anscombe to reject two opposing positions—that the objects of sensation are sense data, and that they are ordinary objects. Both views, she argues, fail to recognize the grammatical fact that verbs of sensation take intentional objects. This chapter sets out Anscombe’s analysis and outlines the case for a grammatical methodology. Along the way, it will be shown that Anscombe’s philosophy of perception should not be read as forerunning contemporary representationalism.

The Structure of Experience

In this chapter, the qualitative view is outlined and shown to avoid the problems facing representationalism. The qualitative view is defended as a ‘pure paint’ view and distinguished from the ‘partial paint’ views of Block and Peacocke. The structure of experience is acknowledged. ‘Intentional objects’ are explained, and the dangers of equating them with elements of experience are exposed. The idea that mental ‘paint’ might ‘point’ is discredited.

The Nature and Ontological Status of Appearances

It is shown that things in themselves and appearances are numerically distinct existents whose primary difference consists in that the former are mind-independent while the latter are mind-dependent, in a sense that is explicated in detail. On the proposed reading, the world, understood as the sum total of everything that has reality, comprises several levels of reality, most importantly, a mind-independent, transcendental level, at which things in themselves exits, and a mind-dependent, empirical level, at which appearances exist. Appearances are identified to be intentional objects of experience. The nature and ontological status of appearances is further investigated by way of an examination of Kant’s account of perception and his theory of experience, including a detailed consideration of the formal and material conditions of experience and of the implications of the mathematical antinomies for the specific flavor of Kant’s idealism about appearances.

Concluding Postscript: The World According to Kant

This completes my account of Kant’s critical idealism, understood as an ontological position, as developed in the Critique and associated theoretical writings. According to Kant, the world, understood as the sum total of everything that has reality, comprises several levels of reality, most importantly, the transcendental level and the empirical level. The transcendental level is a mind-independent level at which Kantian things in themselves exist; the empirical level is a mind-dependent level at which Kantian appearances exist. Things in themselves are mind-independent, appearances are fully mind-dependent. Things in themselves and appearances are numerically distinct and do not ontologically overlap in any way. Kantian outer appearances essentially are intentional objects of outer experience; Kantian inner appearances essentially are intentional objects of inner experience. Empirical objects are Kantian outer appearances, empirical space and time are constituted by the spatial and temporal determinations of outer appearances, pure space and time are (nothing but) forms of sensibility, and empirical selves, or empirical minds, are Kantian inner appearances. In contrast to other intentional objects, such as the intentional objects of fictions, dreams, hallucinations, illusions, and perceptions, Kantian appearances genuinely exist, that is, they exist from the point of view of fundamental ontology. This is due both to the special character of experience, in particular, the special character of outer experience and its conformity to Kant’s formal conditions of objectivity, and to the grounding of Kantian appearances in things themselves. Kantian things in themselves transcendentally affect sensibility and thereby bring about sensations, which provide the ‘matter’ for Kantian appearances and underwrite their existence. Kantian things in themselves are supersensible, non-spatial, and non-temporal, as well as distinct from God and thus finite. Each inner appearance is grounded in a unique Kantian thing in itself that is a human transcendental mind, and all outer appearances are grounded in Kantian things in themselves that are distinct from all human minds. What we commonly call ‘the external empirical world’ exists, including empirical space and time. Accordingly, there is also at least one Kantian thing in itself that is not a human mind. Moreover, there is at least one human being, that is, an entity whose ontologically basic parts include, minimally, a body (which is an empirical object), an empirical self (which is an empirical mind), and a transcendental self (which is a human transcendental mind). Since other intentional objects that are not Kantian appearances, although not genuine existents, are not nothing but have some reality and being, it is useful to conceive of Kantian reality as including yet another mind-dependent level to provide a home for these other fully mind-dependent entities—even if this conception goes beyond the direct textual evidence and may also go beyond Kant’s private, explicitly articulated thoughts on the matter. The ultimate basis for Kant’s case for transcendental idealism is the finitude of the human mind and, more specifically, its fundamentally uncreative nature in which this finitude manifests ...

The World According to Kant

The World According to Kant offers an interpretation of Immanuel Kant’s critical idealism, as developed in the Critique of Pure Reason and associated texts. Critical idealism is understood as an ontological position, which comprises transcendental idealism, empirical realism, and a number of other basic ontological theses. According to Kant, the world, understood as the sum total of everything that has reality, comprises several levels of reality, most importantly, the transcendental level and the empirical level. The transcendental level is a mind-independent level at which things in themselves exist. The empirical level is a fully mind-dependent level at which appearances exist, which are intentional objects of experience. Empirical objects and empirical minds are appearances, and empirical space and time are constituted by the spatial and temporal determinations of appearances. On the proposed interpretation, Kant is thus a genuine idealist about empirical objects, empirical minds, and space and time. But in contrast to other intentional objects, appearances genuinely exist, which is due both to the special character of experience compared to other kinds of representations such as illusions and dreams, and to the grounding of appearances in things themselves. This is why, on the proposed interpretation, Kant is also a genuine realist about empirical objects, empirical minds, and empirical space and time. This book develops the indicated interpretation, spells out Kant’s case for critical idealism thus understood, pinpoints the differences between critical idealism and ‘ordinary’ idealism, such as Berkley’s, and clarifies the relation between Kant’s conception of things in themselves and the conception of things in themselves by other philosophers, in particular, Kant’s Leibniz-Wolffian predecessors.

Respuesta a Noé Expósito Ropero

Este artículo es una respuesta a la crítica de Noé Expósito Ropero —que se basa en gran medida en la visión de Javier San Martín— a mi interpretación de la filosofía de José Ortega y Gasset. El resultado del argumento de Expósito Ropero es que Ortega es más fenomenólogo de lo que yo considero, que me equivoco al pen-sar que existen los “objetos reales” más allá de los objetos intencionales de Edmund Husserl, y que ningún objeto inanimado puede ser tratado como un “yo”. Como réplica, respondo a cada una de estas acusaciones.This article is a response to Noé Expósito Ropero’s critique—which draws heavily on the views of Javier San Martín—of my interpretation of the philosophy of José Ortega y Gasset. The upshot of Expósito Ropero’s argument is that Ortega is more of a phenomenologist than I realize, that I am wrong to think there is any such thing as “real objects” beyond Edmund Husserl’s intentional objects, and that no inanimate object can be treated as an “I.” In response, I answer each of these charges

THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL STATUS OF AN AFFECTIVE RESPONSE TO THE IMAGINARY IN HUSSERL’S AND SARTRE’S WORKS

The paper focuses on the phenomenological status of an affective re- sponse to the imaginary in Husserl’s and Sartre’s works. Initially Husserl supposed that intentional objects of phantasy and perception may be identical. In turn, an imagination (fantasy) can substantiate affective acts, that is, the imaginary can become the subject of an emotional reaction. Along with fantasies, which are only the background of our conscious life, there are such ones in which we “live”, being absorbed in a fantasized object “to self-forgetfulness”. The feelings aimed at the imaginary may in the case seem no different from the real ones. R. Hopkins considers that position as reasonable, and the point of view of Sartre, who asserts the opposite, as vulnerable. However the article shows that both Husserl and Sartre discovered that affectivity plays its role even in the perceptual objects constitution. The image, according to Sartre, is constituted entirely by means of affecti vity and knowledge, in connection with which it is characterized by “essential poverty”, that is, it is impossible to learn anything new from the image. Earlier, Husserl came to the conclusion about a radical difference between objects of fantasy and perception, changing his original opinion. A fantasized object is quasi-seen because it isn’t given as actually present and feelings directed to it undergo modification and represent a “quasi-feeling”. Sartre follows Husserl’s way and claims that affective acts related to the imaginary are rather enacted than ex- perienced since they have neither the independence nor the inexhaustibility of the real. There is nothing in fantasied object to feed the feeling consequently it becomes more abstract and finally disappears.

Stories in Stones

Stones are everywhere in Romantic poetry. And they can stir as intentional objects when (to call on Coleridge for the animations of poetry) ‘there is a meditative and feeling mind to seek after them, or to notice them, when they present themselves’ (Biographia Literaria). Between psychological animation and stubborn materiality stirs yet another behaviour, a ‘vibrant materiality’ that has ethical philosopher Jane Bennett wondering about things (stones included) as actants independent of human wants and purposes. Yet it takes human agency, human purposes even (a Bennett-bend), to consider unconsidering things this way. ‘Stories in Stones’ is a story of Shelley, Wordsworth, Byron, and Keats all tuned into the paradox.