Show simple item record

dc.rights.licenseCC-BY-NC-ND
dc.contributor.advisorLievers, M.
dc.contributor.authorBremmers, L.
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-04T17:00:45Z
dc.date.available2019-09-04T17:00:45Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.urihttps://studenttheses.uu.nl/handle/20.500.12932/33998
dc.description.abstractSince the publication of Gareth Evans’s The Varieties of Reference in 1982, in which Evans introduced the distinction between conceptual and nonconceptual content, there has been an ongoing debate in the philosophy of perception about the nature of the content of perceptual experiences. At first sight, the debate between conceptualists and nonconceptualists does not seem that difficult to get a grip on, as most proponents or opponents of nonconceptual content use versions of the same arguments to argue for and against one of the two positions. However, this thesis shows that there is a complication: methodological disagreements between conceptualists and nonconceptualists cause the participants in the debate to talk past one another. In response to this complication, this thesis argues that (1) philosophical accounts of perception must meet two conditions if a more constructive debate between conceptualists and nonconceptualists is to be realized, and that (2) given my conditions for philosophical accounts of perception, perceptual content can best be understood as nonconceptual.
dc.description.sponsorshipUtrecht University
dc.format.extent593063
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoen
dc.titleNonconceptual Content in Perception
dc.type.contentMaster Thesis
dc.rights.accessrightsOpen Access
dc.subject.keywordsConceptualism, John McDowell, Nonconceptual content, Nonconceptualism, Perceptual content, Perceptual experience, Philosophy of perception
dc.subject.courseuuPhilosophy


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record