Andreas Kemmerling

In his book Naturalizing the Mind, Fred Dretske, among other things, gives what he thinks is a naturalist account of what he calls introspective knowledge.1 I shall not quarrel with his labels; I shall quarrel with what he tries to sell by using them. For him, introspective knowledge is “the mind’s direct knowledge of itself”,2 and he concentrates on knowledge of one’s own current mental occurrences, especially those which belong to the realm of sensory perception. An example he discusses is the knowledge somebody has who looks at something and sees it as blue, and thereby knows that he is, as Dretske puts it, “representing” it as blue. I shall stick to this example. Harvey is looking at my shirt, and he thereby comes to know that he is representing it as blue. Dretske wants to answer the question: What is really happening when Harvey acquires this piece of introspective knowledge? Let me first give, in a very rough way, what I take to be Dretske’s basic idea. Introspective knowledge is not acquired by anything like looking inside oneself. One looks in the same direction as one does when one is acquiring “extraspective” knowledge. Harvey doesn’t first look at my shirt, saying “Uhuh, this shirt looks blue, but now I’d like to find out how I am representing it”, and then turns to look at something else in order to find out what the colour is he is representing the shirt to have. Harvey only looks at the shirt, when he acquires this item of introspective knowledge. In looking at that shirt, he acquires all the information he needs for acquiring the knowledge about himself that he is representing it as blue. The eyes’ job is done. The rest is exploiting that very information, not acquiring any new information

It is often assumed that Paul Grice, in one way or another, has made an important contribution to the theory of speech acts} Grice, as far as I can see, never expressly addresses Austin’s theory in his published work. He hardly ever uses the speech act terminology of "illocution", "perlocution", etc.2 So what does the more or less implicit Gricean contribution to the theory of speech acts consist in'? There is more than one good answer to this question. I shall concentrate on a particularly influential one, which goes back to Strawson (1964). It says that Austin, in his account of the nature of illocutionary acts, over-emphasized the role of conventions; that Austin went wrong in characterizing illocutionary acts as acts which are essentially conventional. The Gricean contribution to speech act theory, according to the envisaged answer, is twofold, both diagnostic and therapeutic. First, it helps us see where and why Austin went wrong in taking illocutionary acts to be essentially conventional. Second, it suggests an essentially intentional — instead of an essentially conventional- element in illocutionary acts. In his 1964 paper Strawson tried to bring out, as regards the interplay of convention and intention in illocutionary acts, both what can be conceded to Austin and what must be learnt from Grice. Austin (1962: 115) had said that "the performance of an illocutionaiy act involves the securing of uptake". Strawson (1964: 158 ff) interprets Austin as meani_ng to say that the performance of an illocutionary act involves understanding of illocutionary force. Understanding of illocutionary force involves, according to Strawson, grasping a "compleX [speaker’s] intention" (ib.: 160), and it is here, of course, where he brings Gricean ideas into _Austin’s scheme of what the essence of illocution is. He says.

Lockes Wahrnehmungstheorie dient einem klaren philosophischen Ziel.1 Sie soll dazu beitragen, seine empiristische Grundthese zu untermauern, dass alle unsere Ideen letztlich aus der Erfahrung kommen – entweder aus der sinnlichen Wahrnehmung äußerer Gegenstände, oder aus der Reflexion, d.h. aus der inneren Wahrnehmung dessen, was im eigenen Geist gegeben ist. Jede Idee ist entweder komplex (d.h. das Ergebnis geistiger Operationen wie denen des Zusammenfügens, Vergleichens, Erweiterns und Abstrahierens letztlich von einfachen Ideen), oder sie ist eine einfache Idee. Einfache Ideen charakterisiert er folgendermaßen: Sie bieten dem Geist etwas Einheitliches dar, in dem kein Unterschied anzutreffen ist, und lassen sich deshalb nicht in verschiedene Ideen zerlegen. Der Geist ist nicht fähig, aus eigener Kraft eine einfache Idee zu bilden oder zu zerstören; darin sind sie den kleinsten Teilchen der Körperwelt vergleichbar (II.2.1 f.). Sie sind also keine Fiktionen unserer Einbildung, sondern "notwendigerweise das Produkt von Dingen, die auf den Geist in einer natürlichen Weise einwirken"; zwischen ihnen und den Dingen, die sie uns repräsentieren, besteht eine "Konformität", die für wirkliches Wissen ausreicht (IV.4.4). Wir werden uns hier auf Lockes Theorie der Sinneswahrnehmung beschränken, die er viel detaillierter ausführt als seine Theorie der Reflexion. Insbesondere wird es darum gehen, vor welche komplexe Problemlage Lockes wahrnehmungstheoretischer Ansatz durch eine bestimmte Klasse körperlicher Eigenschaften (die sog. sekundären Qualitäten) gestellt wird und welche Lösung er entwickelt. Die Komplexität des Problems, vor dem Locke steht, rührt –wie im folgenden deutlich werden wird– daher, dass es Annahmen aus unterschiedlichen Bereichen sind (Erkenntnistheorie, Kausaltheorie, Repräsentationstheorie und Ontologie), die im Falle der primären Qualitäten keine Schwierigkeiten bereiten, wohl aber im Falle der sekundären..

I don't have any serious quarrels with John Searle's approach to speech act theory.' There's a lot of little things that I do not really understand. (Example: what is a direction of fit?) There are a few mmor points which I think are wrong. (Example: the doctrine about "underlying rules" which are "manifested or realized" by conventions, and, to be frank, the whole thing about so called constitutive rules. Why should a statement like "Greeting in a normal context cotmts as a corteous recognition of the addressee by the speaker" be regarded as conveying a rule? How could one violate, or follow, the alleged role? Maybe greeting is something which presupposes the existence of certain rules, or maybe statements of the type "x counts as y in context c" are true only in virtue of the fact that certain policies are accepted in the contexts in question, but the statement above, concerning the essence of..

Gemäß Freges Lehre bestehen Gedanken nicht aus Teilen, sie sind allerdings in Teile zerlegbar. Es gibt unterschiedliche Zerlegungen desselben Gedankens, die in allen objektiven Hinsichten gleichwertig sind. Freges einziges Identitätskriterium für Gedanken war sein Äquipollenzprinzip, demzufolge zwei simple Sätze denselben Gedanken ausdrücken, wenn sie unmöglich verschiedene Wahrheitswerte haben. Zerlegung von Gedanken ist für menschliche Erkenntnis unerläßlich, enthält aber ein Moment subjektiver Willkür. Die objektiven Zusammenhänge zwischen Sprache, Sinn und Bezug bestehen nur auf der Ebene unzerlegter Ganzheiten (Sätze, Gedanken, Wahrheitswerte). Freges semantische Lehre hat mit Quines Unbestimmüieitsthesen wesentliche strukturelle Gemeinsamkeiten.