Abstract
The phenomenal particularity thesis maintains that perceived external, mind-independent particulars are constituents of perceptual phenomenal character, the phenomenal character we associate with perception. The thesis has emerged as a point of contention between naive realists and other views of experience, in particular representationalism. While cases of misperception offer one traditional reason for rejecting the thesis, a more recent argument focuses on cases of perception. According to the perception argument, the particularity thesis commits us to implausible verdicts on the phenomenal similarities and differences given certain pairs of veridical experience. In response to this argument, a common strategy has been to distinguish different types of phenomenal character, and maintain that only some manifest particularity. In this chapter I argue that this strategy cannot serve the naive realist because it leaves us with conceptions of phenomenal character that fail to preserve the role of perception in the subject’s cognitive life. After presenting the worry and a possible solution, I argue that we can nevertheless defend the particularity of experience. The perception argument assumes a ‘phenomenal reflection principle’, which maintains that differences and similarities in an experience’s constitutive particulars must be reflected in differences and similarities in the experience’s phenomenal character. But this principle is underspecified. When we further specify it, we see that particularists are not committed to implausible verdicts about phenomenal character.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Throughout I use ‘perception’ to pick out fully successful cases of perceptual experience. I use ‘perceptual experience’ for successful and unsuccessful cases.
- 2.
Cf.Susanna Schellenberg’s distinction between phenomenological and relational particularity e.g. in (2018).
- 3.
But see e.g. Ali (2018), who rejects the absence of particulars in hallucination.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
Cf. Mehta’s (2014) wine case.
- 7.
See Mehta and Ganson (2016).
- 8.
What S3 pairs are supposed to establish has varied with time. An early worry was that the S3 pair would have to be phenomenally identical according to the particularist e.g. See Fish (2009), Brewer (2011). The more recent worry focuses on the fact that the experiences have to be similar in at least one phenomenal respect. See e.g. French and Gomes (2016), and Mehta and Ganson (2016).
- 9.
- 10.
French and Gomes (2019) p. 9.
- 11.
- 12.
Beck (2019a) p. 8.
- 13.
Beck (2019a) pp. 8–9.
- 14.
I use ‘relationalism’ and ‘naive realism’ interchangeably.
- 15.
Here I do not mean to say the views coincide fully. The point is only that all three notions are particularist but not fully introspectively knowable. See Section 15.3 for more.
- 16.
Again, the claim is not that the views fully coincide. Only that each is of a fully introspectively knowable character that is not particularist. See Section 15.3 for more.
- 17.
- 18.
The argument states
-
1.
If twofold naïve realism is true, then there can be phenomenological differences between Q-pair experiences which are in principle undetectable by means of introspection.
-
2.
If there can be phenomenological differences between Q-pair experiences which are in principle undetectable by means of introspection, then there can be aspects of the phenomenology of the experiences in Q-pairs which are in principle introspectively unknowable.
-
3.
Restricted Self-Knowledge Principle (RSKP): There cannot be aspects of phenomenology which are in principle introspectively unknowable in Q-pairs.
-
4.
Therefore, Twofold naïve realism is false.
-
1.
- 19.
French and Gomes (2019) p. 26. Bracketed statement mine.
- 20.
As they put it, “A difference in seemings is not a seeming difference.” (p. 24)
- 21.
French and Gomes think that we can reject premise 2 of the self-knowledge argument if we maintain that differences are relations between experiences. If we accept the difference maker model, we can no longer reject 2 but we can reject 1.
- 22.
- 23.
By using ‘reflect’ my aim is to remain neutral on how exactly the differences and similarities in perceived, constitutive particulars feature in phenomenal character. The term is also used elsewhere, e.g. in Mehta (2014).
- 24.
References
Ali, R. (2018). Does hallucinating involve perceiving? Philosophical Studies, 175(3), 601–627.
Beck, O. (2019a). Two conceptions of phenomenology. Philosophers’ Imprint, 19, 1–17.
Beck, O. (2019b). Rethinking naive realism. Philosophical Studies, 176(3), 607–633.
Brewer, B. (2011). Perception and its objects. Oxford University Press.
Clarke, S., & Anaya, A. (2017). Naïve realism and phenomenal similarity. Inquiry: An interdisciplinary. Journal of Philosophy, 1–18.
Dretske, F. (2004). Change blindness. Philosophical Studies, 120(1–3), 1–18.
Fish, W. (2009). Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion. Oxford University Press.
French, C., & Gomes, A. (2019). How Naïve realism can explain both the particularity and the generality of experience. The Philosophical Quarterly, 69(274), 41–63.
Gomes, A., & French, C. (2016). On the particularity of experience. Philosophical Studies, 173(2), 451–460.
Gomes, A., & French, C. Still particular: A reply to Ganson and Mehta. Archived at PhilPapers May 2016.
Martin, M. G. F. (2002). Particular thoughts & singular thought. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 51, 173–214.
Mehta, N. (2014). The limited role of particulars in phenomenal experience. Journal of Philosophy, 111(6), 311–331.
Mehta, N. (2021). The fragmentation of phenomenal character. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12755
Mehta, N., & Ganson, T. (2016). On the generality of experience: A reply to French and Gomes. Philosophical Studies, 173(12), 3223–3229.
Morgan, J. (2017). Naïve realism and phenomenal overlap. Philosophical Studies, 174(5), 1243–1253.
Schellenberg, S. (2018). The unity of perception: Content, consciousness, evidence. Oxford University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Ali, R. (2024). What Does Phenomenal Particularity Commit Us to?. In: French, R., Brogaard, B. (eds) The Roles of Representation in Visual Perception. Synthese Library, vol 486. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57353-8_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-57353-8_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-57352-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-57353-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)