The main focus of acquaintance theorists has been the nature and mechanism of perceptual acquaintance with particulars. Generally, one’s view of perceptual acquaintance with general features has taken its bearings from one’s view of perceptual acquaintance with particulars. This has led to the glossing over of significant differences in the mechanisms of perceptual acquaintance with particulars and with general features. The difference in mechanisms suggests a difference in the sort of epistemic state at play in the two kinds of cases. (...) While the existence of such a difference might initially seem to spell trouble for acquaintance theorists, it can be made palatable by being traced back to the distinct basic functions concepts of particulars and of general features serve in thought. (shrink)

In this paper I examine the conflicting ways in which Bertrand Russell and Hegel understand indexical expressions. For this purpose, I consider some books and articles written by Russell in different moments of his life, and the first chapter of Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit, book published in 1807. I try to show that Russell, even being a Hegel scholar, does not respond to his proposal about indexical expressions, but takes a position that keeps him trapped in a kind of self-deception (...) of sense-certainty. At the end, I suggest that the differences between Hegel and Russell in relation to indexical expressions can be explained by the fact that the ontologies adopted by both authors exclude each other. (shrink)

Universals in the Platonic tradition were intended to play both metaphysical and epistemological roles. The contemporary debate around universals has focused overwhelmingly on the former, with even ‘platonists’ typically holding that our knowledge of universals is derived from our knowledge of particulars. In contrast, I wish to argue for the epistemological primacy of the universal: specifically, I defend the thesis that we perceive particulars as a result of knowing universals, and not the other way around. My argument draws from the (...) work of Malebranche, who notoriously contended that we see ordinary objects through the immutable ‘ideas’. I conclude with the suggestion that the resulting account of the relationship between our knowledge of universals and our perception of particulars may be thought of as a kind of Platonic indirect realism. (shrink)