Share This Article:

The Place of Concept in Human Cognitive Process of Perception: Why the Conceptualists Cannot Be Right?

Abstract Full-Text HTML XML Download Download as PDF (Size:776KB) PP. 96-103
DOI: 10.4236/ojpp.2015.51011    4,311 Downloads   4,736 Views  

ABSTRACT

There have been so many controversies in the meaning of concept and particularly its place in the cognitive process of perception. The conceptualists, particularly, John McDowell, D. W. Hamlyn, Bill Brewer and Sonia Sedivy, argue that the content of perceptual experience is always in a kind of relation with propositional attitude such that beliefs, judgments, hopes and aspirations are instantaneously captured in perception. If this is granted, then, it becomes difficult to admit the possibility of non-conceptuality in perception. But, on a critical look at the conceptualists’ arguments and deductions, we discover that the conceptualists conflate sensation with perception and concept formation. In view of this, this paper examines and does a critical analysis of the meaning of concept with the belief that if its place in the cognitive process of perception is determined and ascertained, the long standing problem about the nature and characterization of the content of human perceptual experience will automatically dissolve. Whilst distinguishing and separating sensation from perception, the paper establishes that concept-formation is not generic to perception and that there is a place for non-conceptuality in perception. This paper employs conceptual analytical tools to explain the place of concept, sensation and perceptual experience in the cognitive process of perception and thus establishes the truism of non-conceptuality in perception.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Akintona, E. (2015) The Place of Concept in Human Cognitive Process of Perception: Why the Conceptualists Cannot Be Right?. Open Journal of Philosophy, 5, 96-103. doi: 10.4236/ojpp.2015.51011.

References

[1] Brewer, B. (2004). Perception and Conceptual Content. In E. Sosa, & M. Steup (Eds.), Contemporary Debates in Epistemology (pp. 89-112). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
[2] Davidson, D. (1997). Seeing through Language. Supplement to Philosophy, 42, 15-27.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S135824610001016X
[3] Hamlyn, D. W. (1994). Perception, Sensation and Non-Conceptual Content. The Philosophical Quarterly, 44, 139-153.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2219737
[4] Hospers, J. (1956). An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.
[5] Kant, I. (1997). Critique of Pure Reason (A: 1881 & B: 1887). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[6] Locke, J. (1993). An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. London: Everyman’s Library. Dent/Dutton; First Published in 1690.
[7] McDowell, J. (1994). Mind and World. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
[8] Rand, A. (1990). Objectivism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept
[9] Pinker, S. (1995). The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_language_instinct
[10] Sellars, W. F. (1956). Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. In H. Feigl, & M. Scrivens (Eds.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 1, pp. 253-329). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
[11] Stalnaker, R. (2004). What Might Non-Conceptual Content Be? Philosophical Issues, Villanueva. Atascadero (2003) CA: Ridgeview. Reference to the Reprinting in Gunther.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2019 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.