O argumento da ilusão/alucinação e o disjuntivismo: Ayer versus Austin

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The argument from illusion/hallucination have been proposed many times as supporting the strong conclusion that we are always perceiving directly sense-data. In Sense & Sensibilia, Austin argues that this argument is based on a “mass of seductive (mainly verbal) fallacies”. In this paper, I argue that Austin's argumentative moves to deconstruct the argument from illusion is better understood if they are seen as due to his implicit commitment to some disjunctivist conception of perception. His considerations should be taken as a depth discussion about how to conceive perception. If we conceive the perceptual capacity disjunctively, even the weaker conclusion that we sometimes perceive sense-data does not hold. In response to Austin, Ayer claimed that the strong conclusion of the argument from illusion could be sustained by the method of the possibility of error. I argue that this method alone does not sustain that conclusion and the controversy turns back to the conflict between different conceptions of perception. The argument from illusion is philosophically interesting by putting in evidence the problem of how the perceptual capacity should be articulated and conceived. Although matters of fact are relevant to this question, they alone do not decide it.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
CAROAD-3
Revision history
First archival date: 2017-02-12
Latest version: 2 (2019-07-08)
View upload history
References found in this work BETA
Visual Experiences.Hinton, J. M.

View all 10 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Added to PP index
2017-02-12

Total views
255 ( #14,181 of 43,944 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
78 ( #7,516 of 43,944 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.