Arnaud Dewalque

This paper offers a reconstruction of Külpe’s theory of cognitive attitudes from the perspective of contemporary debates about cognitive phenomenology. I argue that Külpe’s view contrasts with analytic mainstream approaches to the same phenomena in at least two respects. First, Külpe claims, cognitive experiences are best described in terms of occurrent cognitive acts or attitudes toward sensory, imagistic or intellectual contents. Second, occurrent cognitive attitudes are intransitively conscious in the sense that they are experienced by, or phenomenally manifest to, the subject. I call the combination of those two claims the conscious cognitive attitudes theory. I suggest that, despite some difficulties, this theory offers a worth-considering alternative to contentual and/or nonphenomenological theories of cognitive phenomena.

It seems uncontroversial that perceptual experiences provide us with some “normative support” for beliefs or judgments about our surroundings. Provided that the normative force of perceptual justification is something that manifests itself in consciousness or something we commonly experience, what are its phenomenal features? To put it differently: What is it to experience the normative force of perceptual justification? In the first section I will briefly comment on the demand of a unified theory of perceptual experiences, viz. a theory which is capable of integrating relevant epistemological and phenomenological aspects of perceptual experiences. In section two I will argue for a way of connecting the epistemological problem and the phenomenological problem by appealing to a compare-and-contrast strategy. Eventually, in section three, I will try to draw some lessons for our understanding of the normative force of perceptual justification

Suppose you perceive a cup of wonderful Italian coffee on the table in front of you. Is your visual experience best described as a representation-of a cup of coffee or as a relation-to a cup of coffee? Representationalism and relationalism, I suggest, are two prominent options under discussion in the present-day philosophical investigations on perception. In this paper, I want to argue that both options are on the wrong track. The reason, basically, is that they are at odds with the analytical description of our perceptual experience

When you are in a joyful mood, how do you know that it is so? On a Cartesian picture, the answer is that you’ve got some immediate, noninferential apprehension of your being joyful, such as this noninferential apprehension is analogous to sense perception, and unlike sense perception, it makes it unquestionable or evident to you that you presently are in a joyful mood. In this paper, I defend this view against some classical objections, arguing that pre-reflective self-consciousness actually is analogous to sense perception

Partant du constat que la majeure partie des débats concernant un éventuel « primat de la raison pratique » se jouent pour ainsi dire en amont de la phénoménologie husserlienne, j’entreprends d’abord de retracer les deux sources de la thèse du « primat de la raison pratique », telle qu’elle est défendue dans l’école néokantienne de Bade, à savoir la source kantienne-fichtéenne, qui concerne le caractère « normatif » du critère de validité de la connaissance, et la source brentanienne-bergmannienne, qui concerne le caractère « pratique » des actes judicatifs. J’examine ensuite brièvement les deux stratégies développées respectivement par Rickert et par Lask pour écarter l’objection de « moralisme » : l’idée d’un « parallélisme logico-éthique » (Rickert) et la critique du concept de Sollen (Lask).

Mon intention est de discuter quelques aspects du débat actuel sur la perception qui oppose les partisans du conceptualisme (essentiellement John McDowell et Bill Brewer) aux partisans du non-conceptualisme (Fred Dretske, Gareth Evans, Christopher Peacocke, Michael Tye, Tim Crane, José Luis Bermúdez, Adina Roskies et d?autres). Je commencerai par fixer le cadre théorique du débat, par clarifier son enjeu et par retracer brièvement son origine. Ensuite, je mettrai en évidence une difficulté majeure de la position conceptualiste. Pour finir, j?examinerai l?une des approches qui me semblent les plus prometteuses pour décrire adéquatement la manière dont fonctionne le mécanisme référentiel de la perception et le rôle des contenus non conceptuels au sein de ce mécanisme. Cette approche se présente comme une variante de la thèse des « contenus multiples » (voir Siegel 2010, section 3.5). Selon cette variante, le contenu total d?une expérience perceptuelle doit être construit comme un contenu complexe, composé de plusieurs couches ou plusieurs strates distinctes. En d?autres termes, l?approche qui m?intéressera ici consiste à admettre l?existence de contenus perceptuels à plusieurs niveaux ou de ce que l?on appellerait, en langue anglaise, multi-levelled perceptual contents . Une telle conception peut être rattachée exemplairement, dans le paysage philosophique des vingt dernières années, à la position de Christopher Peacocke

objectif de ce chapitre est de réévaluer succinctement les relations entre la phénoménologie et la psychologie expérimentale naissantes à partir des positions de Franz Brentano et de Wilhelm Wundt. Contrairement à une idée reçue, je suggère, d’une part, que les programmes analytiques de Brentano et de Wundt reposent tous deux sur un procédé expérimental consistant à faire varier les parties des phénomènes psychiques étudiés. Mais je suggère aussi, d’autre part, que les théories de l’analyse psychique défendues par Wundt et Brentano diffèrent sur plusieurs points essentiels – le plus manifeste étant que l’analyse brentanienne considère les actes (et non les sensations) comme éléments ou unités psychiques de référence.

In this chapter, it is argued that Weber's particular combination of Von Kries' naturalistic paradigm and Rickert's antinaturalistic paradigm might become less puzzling if we return to the interpretation that emerged in the middle of the nineteen-twenties within the South-Western School of neo-Kantianism. The basic intuition which underlies this interpretation is that the social sciences are best understood as generalizing cultural sciences. On this understanding, they differ both from the natural sciences and the historical sciences

What is the phenomenal structure of our perceptual experiences? In this talk, I suggest that perceptual experiences – like consciousness in general – have a mereological structure, that is, a structure in which the most basic relation is that of parthood. I do not provide any definitive argument for this view. I just want to suggest (i) that the mereological approach is untouched by the usual objections coming from the proponents of the Unified Field Theory (James, Searle, Tye), (ii) that the Unified Field Theory faces some important difficulties of its own

In this chapter, I give a bird’s eye view of the Brentano School from a rather historical perspective. My leading hypothesis is that one crucial factor explaining the rise of the school is Brentano’s unique strategy, within the academic context of the time, to promote the revival of philosophy as a rigorous science. After a brief introduction, I reconstruct the three main phases in the school’s development, namely Brentano’s teaching in Würzburg, his teaching in Vienna, and Anton Marty’s teaching in Prague.