Anita Avramides

It has been suggested that we can come by our knowledge of what others think and feel through perception. The idea has been worked out in different ways by different philosophers. In this chapter I consider the perceptual account proposed by Fred Dretske. In section one I outline Dretske’s account, and highlight a particular feature of it. In section two I set out an adequacy condition for any account that proposes to be an account of our mental life. In section three I consider Dretske’s account in the light of this adequacy condition and argue that Dretske’s account does not meet this condition. I conclude that while Dretske holds that we get our knowledge of other minds in much the same way that we get our knowledge of bodies in the world around us, I argue that the account cannot be extended to give us knowledge of other minds because there is a crucial asymmetry here that must be acknowledged.

This chapter investigates the question, why the concerns of _Meaning_ and _Remnants of Meaning_—the analysis of meaning and its place in a reductive account of the propositional attitudes—are largely absent from _The Things We Mean_. Part of the explanation for this concerns Schiffer’s skepticism about conceptual analysis in general and the analysis of meaning in particular; another part concerns the failure of the reductionist program outlined in works such as “Intention-Based Semantics” (1982). The chapter argues, however, that the reduction of semantic properties to psychological properties has value even independently of the reductionist program. (Indeed, it is not clear that Grice’s or the early Schiffer’s work was driven by a concern for a further reduction of the psychological to the physical.) If this is correct, then the recent step to a minimalist account of meaning (in _Things_ and elsewhere) may be thought to be premature.

In this paper I will trace a possible overlap between the Davidsonian appeal to the principle of charity in connection with the interpretation of a radically different language and an idea that can be found in the writing of Stanley Cavell. While Cavell puts forward his idea as an understanding of the work of the later Wittgenstein, I want to treat these ideas as standing on their own and I shall leave aside any assessment of Wittgenstein scholarship. What we learn from Davidson is that the principle of charity is not optional and that it goes deep. What I find in the work of Cavell is a possible account of why the principle is not optional and a sense of just how deep it goes. What we learn from the work of both of these philosophers is the way in which linguistic competence can be both deeply personal and yet shared.

In his paper Zahavi accuses many of those writing on the topic of collective intentionality (who work largely in the analytic tradition) of having too narrow a focus and urges that they adopt a richer framework. In this commentary I draw attention to various features of the richer framework that Zahavi urges and ask whether analytic philosophers are in a position to accept those features. I also raise questions for some aspects of the framework that Zahavi champions. In particular, I query the relationship of the self to the social that Zahavi proposes here and ask whether the community of distinct individuals requires the notion of self that he proposes.

How do we know whether there are other minds besides our own? The problem of other minds raises many questions which are at the root of all philosophical investigations - how it is we know, what is the mind and can we be certain about any of our beliefs? In this compelling analysis of 'other minds' Anita Avramides traces the question from the Ancient Sceptics through to Descartes, Malebranche, Locke, Berkeley, Reid and Wittgenstein. The second part of the book explores the views of influential contemporary philosophers such as Strawson, Davidson, Nagel and Searle. _Other Minds_ provides a clear insightful introduction to one of the most important problems in philosophy. It will prove invaluable to all students of philosophy.

It is possible to tease out two questions in connection with the epistemological problem of other minds: (i) How do I know what others think and feel? and (ii) How do I know that others think and feel? Fred Dretske offers a perceptual account of our knowledge of other minds that yields an answer to (i) but not (ii). Quassim Cassam uses Dretske’s perceptual account to show how we can answer both (i) and (ii). In this paper I show how we can use Dretske’s work to understand some work by Stanley Cavell. I suggest that, where Dretske claims that we cannot answer (ii), Cavell holds that (ii) is a question that reflects a misunderstanding of our relations to others. In the place of asking how I can know that others think and feel, Cavell holds that I must acknowledge the other. And at the heart of this acknowledgment is an acceptance of others as separate from me. I must acknowledge the other as an other to me.

Davidson aims to explain how it is that we come by knowledge of the world, our own minds and other minds, and to show that knowledge of other minds is the more fundamental. A community of minds is the basis of all knowledge and provides the measure of all things. Davidson believes that understanding this will provide a reply to the skeptic. I argue that while Davidson's work may provide a reply to a new skeptical problem, it is not clear how it engages with traditional skeptical problems. In order to better understand Davidson's work in connection with the latter, I suggest that we look to the writing of Wittgenstein. I also suggest that when Davidson writes of knowledge, he is not thinking along traditional lines. Finally, I suggest that, while there exist inferential and perceptual models of our knowledge of another mind, Davidson's work offers yet another model.

The label ‘ordinary language philosophy’ was often used by the enemies than by the alleged practitioners of what it was intended to designate. It was supposed to designate a certain kind of philosophy that flourished, mainly in Britain and therein mainly in Oxford roughly after 1945. Early analytic philosophy was associated with logical positivism. According to von Wright, the Tractatus made Wittgenstein one of the 'spiritual fathers' of logical positivism. 'Sophistry and illusion' also summed up the positivist attitude toward the metaphysics that they saw as being practiced largely in Continental Europe in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. From common roots in Kant's writings one sees philosophy on the Continent proceed in one direction while in Britain proceed in quite another. The question of the business of philosophy, and its relationship to the business of science are matters of deep importance to the academic and intellectual life of the community.

The usual way with scepticism is to formulate a problem in connection with the external world and then apply this to other minds. Drawing on work by Stanley Cavell and Richard Moran, I argue that the sceptic misses an important difference in our concepts of mind and of body, and that this is reflected in the sceptic’s formulation of a problem regarding other minds. I suggest that an understanding of this important conceptual difference is also missing from the work of those who attempt to reply to (dismiss, or ignore) the sceptic. In this connection I discuss both inferential and perceptual accounts of our knowledge of other minds. I identify an error in these accounts that may be thought to arise from a lack of understanding of the important conceptual difference here, and then develop an understanding of this error that draws on the work of Edith Stein and Stanley Cavell.

We sometimes use perceptual language in connection with the minds of others. In this paper I explore the extent to which we can take our language here at face value. Fred Dretske separates out a knowledge-that and a knowledge-what question in connection with our knowledge of others, and claims that we can give a perceptual account of the latter but not the former. In this paper I follow Dretske in separating out questions here, but argue that Dretske does not go far enough when saying why it is that we cannot answer the knowledge- that question. I suggest we follow Wittgenstein and say that the knowledge-that question is misguided. The difference between myself and Dretske lies in the way in which we think of what needs to be in place in order for us to give an account of what another thinks or feels.

In his new book, Jay Garfield invites philosophers of all persuasions to engage with Buddhist philosophy. In part I of this paper, I raise some questions on behalf of the philosopher working in the analytic tradition about the way in which Buddhist philosophy understands itself. I then turn, in part II, to look at what Orthodox Buddhism has to say about the self. I examine the debate between the Buddhist position discussed and endorsed by Garfield and that of a lesser-known school that he mentions only briefly, the Pudgalavāda. I suggest that the views of the Pudgalavādins are strikingly similar to a position held, in the twentieth century analytic philosophy, by Peter Strawson.

This chapter suggests that, when considering the philosophical problem of other minds, we distinguish between "thick" and "thin" versions of it. While traditional approaches take the problem to be a thick one, more recent work can be seen as addressing only a thin variant. Dretske, while acknowledging the thick problem, proposes a perceptual model of our knowledge of other minds which addresses only the thin version. The chapter proposes that, in the place of the thick problem, we consider the quality of our interactions with others. Following Wittgenstein, it suggests that where individuals share a nature their interactions exhibit a quality that it calls "depth." Where that nature is not, or is only partially, shared, there one might expect to find the quality of the interaction between persons disturbed. The chapter suggests that this disturbance might explain the impaired quality of interaction between autistic and non-autistic individuals.

The Gricean account of language is at the center of much current work in the philosophy of language and the philosophy of mind. Anita Avramides maintains that Grice's paradigm can be used to defend very different conceptions of mind and of meaning. In this clearly argued book she describes Grice's analysis of meaning and proposes two interpretations of it, one reductive and one nonreductive. Much current work in cognitive science assumes that the content of words and thoughts can be explained in naturalistic terms. A leading idea (advanced mainly by Stephen Schiffer and Brian Loar) is that the naturalistic account of content will proceed in two stages: a reduction of the semantic features of word; to the contents of propositional attitudes and then a reduction of the latter to physical or functional notions. The appeal of Grice's work on meaning to this two stage reductionist strategy is that Gricean definitions seem to provide the only way of reducing the semantic to the psychological, a reduction that is required for a naturalistic account of intentionality. While Avramides defends the method of analysis as one suited to the concept of meaning, she rejects a reductive interpretation of the analysis. She argues that any attempt to reduce the semantic to the psychological leads to a mistaken conception of mind. She exposes the assumptions behind the reductive interpretation and offers fresh and original arguments for the antireductionist position. Against the reductive Gricean she defends the idea that there is a deep epistemological symmetry between semantic and propositional attitude notions, a result of which is that semantically characterized linguistic behavior is central to our concept of belief. Anita Avramides is Lecturer in Philosophy at The Queens College, The University of Oxfor. A Bradford Book.

I begin this paper by orienting Michael Dummett’s work in relation to what Adrian Moore identifies as the central concern of metaphysics: making sense of things. The metaphysical issue that most exercises Dummett is the adjudication between a realist and an antirealist conception of reality, and he believes that it is by careful attention to theories of meaning that we can come to see difficulties for a realist metaphysics. Fregean realism gives way to Dummettian antirealism. But Moore is not convinced. While Dummett connects truth with our capacity to know, Moore challenges Dummett to say more about this capacity. Moore accuses Dummett of attempting, with his theory of meaning, to identify limits to our sense-making. As well as running into trouble with (what he identifies as) the limit argument, Moore believes that there may also be a lurking conservatism in Dummett’s work insofar as it can be accused of making no provision for radical conceptual innovation in metaphysics. I attempt to defend Dummett against both criticisms.