Jérôme Dokic

La conception naïve de l’expérience visuelle dépeint celle-ci comme une relation directe, primitive, entre le sujet voyant et l’objet vu. Elle repose sur une opposition entre la relation visuelle et la représentation mentale de l’objet vu dans l’imagination visuelle ou la vision des images. Le but de cet article est de suggérer que l’opposition naïve entre relation et représentation présente un intérêt philosophique et scientifique parfois sous-estimé. Deux théories philosophiques de la perception sont présentées : le relationnisme reprend l’esprit de la conception naïve en analysant l’expérience visuelle comme une relation non représentationnelle à l’objet vu, alors que l’intentionnalisme rejette la conception naïve comme inadéquate et considère que l’expérience visuelle est représentationnelle de part en part. Après avoir introduit une notion générale de « représentation » acceptable par les deux parties, nous examinons un ensemble de travaux issus des sciences cognitives et susceptibles d’arbitrer le débat entre relationnisme et intentionnalisme. La thèse principale défendue est que le relationnisme est compatible avec les données scientifiques à notre disposition sur les processus cognitifs liés à la vision. Le relationnisme présente également un avantage philosophique puisqu’il permet de comprendre comment les représentations mentales, y compris visuelles, peuvent être fondées sur un rapport cognitif plus direct, c’est-à-dire intrinsèquement relationnel, au monde visible.

Aesthetics, both in its theoretical and empirical forms, has seen a renewed interest in the sublime, an aesthetic category dear to traditional philosophers, but quite neglected by contemporary philosophy. Our aim is to offer a novel perspective on the experience of the sublime. More precisely, our hypothesis is that the latter arises from ‘a radical limit-experience’, which is a metacognitve awareness of the limits of our cognitive capacities as we are confronted with something indefinitely greater or more powerful than us. This hypothesis better explains the negative feelings involved in the experience of the sublime and accounts for its demarcation from other experiences (for example, terrible beauty). Experiences of the sublime have an overall positive valence, though. We will explore different ways in which a subject can try to overcome the negative evaluation involved in radical limit-experiences, and suggest that only one of them is appropriate to experiences of the sublime.

Awe seems to be a complex emotion or emotional construct characterized by a mix of positive (contentment, happiness), and negative affective components (fear and a sense of being smaller, humbler or insignificant). It is striking that the elicitors of awe correspond closely to what philosophical aesthetics, and especially Burke and Kant, have called “the sublime.” As a matter of fact, awe is almost absent from the philosophical agenda, while there are very few studies on the experience of the sublime as such in the psychological literature. The aim of this paper is to throw light on the complex relationship between awe (as understood by psychologists) and the experience of the sublime (as discussed by philosophers). We distinguish seven ways of conceiving this relationship and highlight those that seem more promising to us. Once we have a clearer picture of how awe and the experience of the sublime are related, we can use it to enhance collaboration between these domains. We would be able to use empirical results about awe in a philosophical analysis of the experience of the sublime, which in turn can help us to design novel experimental hypotheses about the contexts in which we experience awe.

Si l’accointance est définie comme une relation mentale entre un sujet et un fragment de réalité, le sens de l’accointance est le sentiment pour le sujet d’être en rapport direct avec un fragment de réalité. Pour de nombreux philosophes, le sens de l’accointance fait partie de l’essence de la perception consciente : voir une montagne, par exemple, implique le sentiment d’être en rapport direct avec elle, de l’avoir « en chair et en os » sous les yeux, plutôt que de la viser à travers une représentation mentale indépendante. La thèse principale défendue dans cet essai est que le sens de l’accointance est indépendant et distinct de l’accointance elle-même. Plusieurs exemples présentés montrent que pour être véritablement accointé avec la réalité, il n’est ni nécessaire ni suffisant d’avoir le sentiment d’accointance. Le sens de l’accointance est mieux conçu comme une expérience métacognitive séparée de l’accointance. L’article examine enfin les conséquences de cette thèse pour la question de savoir si la perception implique ou repose sur une représentation mentale de ce qui est perçu.

On a cognitivist account of self-ascription, I can have direct, non-inferential knowledge about my own beliefs. This account makes traditionally appeal to the notion of introspection, conceived as an internal source of knowledge. At least since Wittgenstein, many philosophers have justly worried that such a notion makes it impossible to make sense of the ascription of a unified notion of belief, which can be shared with others. In this essay, I explore another method of self-ascription, which was also envisaged by Wittgenstein (and later by Gareth Evans), which I call “the method of deployment”. This method is such that I can gain knowledge about my own beliefs by attending not inwards but outwards, on the external world as I found it. Wittgenstein feared that the method of deployment would inevitably lead to solipsism. With reference to recent work in the theory of mental simulation, I try to show that Wittgenstein’s fear is ungrounded. I draw two general conclusions. First, the method of deployment does not concern self-ascription only ; it can also ground the ascription of beliefs to others. Second, what is special about self-ascription is the “ontological substrate” on which it is based. For instance, I am warranted in believing that I believe that it is raining because I am presented with the fact that it is raining, in contrast to a mere possibility. The method of deployment does not lead to solipsism if it is based on a naïve ontological distinction between facts and mere possibilities.

When we remember a past situation, the emotional import of the latter often transpires in a modified form at the phenomenological level of our present memory. When it does, we experience what is sometimes called an “affective memory.” Theorists of memories have disagreed about the status of affective memories. Sceptics claim that the relationship between memory and emotion can only be of two types: either the memory is about a past emotion (the emotion is part of what is remembered), or it causes a present emotion (the emotion is a separable effect of the memory). We argue that there is a third option, which points to an emotional way of representing the past situation. Drawing from Peter Goldie’s account of mental narratives, we show that three levels of mental perspective are involved in memories: the perspective of the represented subject (the character, if there is one), the perspective of the representing subject (the author), and the intermediary perspective of the narrator (who may remain virtual). Affective memories are cases in which the narrator’s emotional perspective has direct implications for the author’s emotional perspective, even if the former typically differs from the latter.

Situation theorists such as John Barwise, John Etchemendy, John Perry and François Recanati have put forward the hypothesis that linguistic representations are situated in the sense that they are true or false only relative to partial situations which are not explicitly represented as such. Following Recanati's lead, I explore this hypothesis with respect to mental representations. First, I introduce the notion of unarticulated constituent, due to John Perry. I suggest that the question of whether there really are such constituents should divide in two issues, one concerning language and the other concerning thought. Then I formulate a dilemma that any friend of cognitive unarticulated constituents must face: alleged unarticulated constituents seem to be either articulated or non-constituents after all. The dilemma is strengthened by the fact that unarticulated constituents cannot be inferentially relevant. In §4, three constraints on entertaining situated representations are spelled out. First, although the situation within which one is immersed is not represented as such, there must be cognitive facts that make immersion possible, and explain why one is implicitly related to a particular situation as opposed to another. Second, the move from a given representation to one which articulates the situation requires the capacity to contrast the latter with others in the same range. Third, I suggest that conceptual representations differ from non-conceptual ones in the permanent possibility of detachment that they allow. I then illustrate how these constraints work in three sorts of cases. In the first, thoughts like It's raining and It's over are implicitly related to their situations via some practical capacity of keeping track of particular places or times. In the second sort of cases, the relevant situations are not given, but stipulated, like in In Constance, it's raining. Cases of the third sort are those in which an unarticulated constituent is relevant to a whole system of representations, for instance the perceptual system. In the last section, I use the notion of ad hoc representation to defend the cognitive application of situation semantics against an important objection.

Dans cet article, je me demande ce qui distingue la conscience 'externe' du monde (par exemple, la perception visuelle) et la conscience 'interne' du corps propre (par exemple, l'expérience de la douleur). Je rejette les théories analytiques récentes qui assimilent l'expérience de la douleur à une forme de perception externe, à savoir la perception d'un dommage physique relatif au corps du sujet. Mais je ne souscris pas pour autant à la thèse phénoménologique selon laquelle il y a un 'espace douloureux', et plus généralement un espace corporel, distinct de l'espace de la perception externe. Selon moi, la différence entre la conscience 'à l'extérieur' et la conscience 'de l'intérieur' ne réside ni dans la forme de la perception, ni dans la nature de l'espace perçu, mais dans l'objet intentionnel lui-même, indépendant de l'expérience dans le premier cas, mais dépendant de celle-ci dans le second

This essay explores the prospects of grounding an account of pictorial experience or ‘seeing-in’ on a theory of presence in ordinary perception. Even though worldly objects can be perceptually recognized in a picture, they do not feel present as when they are perceived face to face. I defend a dual view of perceptual phenomenology according to which the sense of presence is dissociated from the contents of perception. On the one hand, the sense of presence is best conceived as a non-sensory feeling. Ordinary objects are felt but not seen to be present. On the other hand, the contents of perception are determined by the actualization of perceptual-recognitional abilities. Unlike current versions of the feeling-based account of the sense of presence, I claim that these abilities enable us to perceive worldly (partial or overall) appearances. This claim justifies the strongest interpretation of recognition theories which does not fall back on the view that pictorial experience involves a kind of perceptual illusion

The notion of perceptual content is commonly introduced in the analysis of perception. It stems from an analogy between perception and propositional attitudes. Both kinds of mental states, it is thought, have conditions of satisfaction. I try to show that on the most plausible account of perceptual content, it does not determine the conditions under which perceptual experience is veridical. Moreover, perceptual content must be bipolar (capable of being correct and capable of being incorrect), whereas perception as a mental state is not (if it is veridical, it is essentially so). This has profound consequences for the epistemological view that perception is a source of knowledge. I sktech a two-level epistemology which is consistent with this view. I conclude that the analogy between perception and propositional attitudes, from which the notion of perceptual content is born, may be more misleading than it is usually thought.