McDowell’s new position and the problem of generality: a contribution to Cheng’s analysis on the notion of conceptuality

Daniel Debarry
{"title":"McDowell’s new position and the problem of generality: a contribution to Cheng’s analysis on the notion of conceptuality","authors":"Daniel Debarry","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00272-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This paper engages with Tony Cheng’s view on John McDowell’s notion of “conceptuality.” In chapter 7 of his <i>John McDowell on Worldly Subjectivity</i>, Cheng offers some reasons why one should drop the idea that concepts play a central role in McDowell’s project. According to Cheng, McDowell’s shift from a propositional to a non-propositional view of perceptual content gives one the opportunity to abandon the controversial idea of perceptual experiences having a conceptual nature. McDowell’s new position indeed admits non-conceptual content. However, Cheng’s thesis misses one point. Although he is correct in saying that according to McDowell’s new position, the <i>objects</i> of perceptual experiences no longer exhibit a conceptual nature, McDowell insists that perceptual experiences still involve conceptual <i>contents</i>. In this paper, I argue that McDowell’s distinction between <i>objects</i> and <i>contents</i> of experience is central to his new view on the philosophical nature of perceptual experiences. To show the significance of this distinction, I start with a closer look at the relationship between the so-called “Travis-McDowell Debate” and McDowell’s more recent reading of Kant. <i>Pace</i> Cheng, I then argue that the contents of experience are still conceptual, according to McDowell, for the <i>particular cases of experience</i> and the <i>general ways for things to be</i> have the same <i>grammar</i>. In the end, I present some obstacles to McDowell’s idea that generalities can figure in particular cases of experience. More than a critique, I aim to give a contribution to Cheng’s discussions on the notion of “conceptuality.”</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00272-0.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s44204-025-00272-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper engages with Tony Cheng’s view on John McDowell’s notion of “conceptuality.” In chapter 7 of his John McDowell on Worldly Subjectivity, Cheng offers some reasons why one should drop the idea that concepts play a central role in McDowell’s project. According to Cheng, McDowell’s shift from a propositional to a non-propositional view of perceptual content gives one the opportunity to abandon the controversial idea of perceptual experiences having a conceptual nature. McDowell’s new position indeed admits non-conceptual content. However, Cheng’s thesis misses one point. Although he is correct in saying that according to McDowell’s new position, the objects of perceptual experiences no longer exhibit a conceptual nature, McDowell insists that perceptual experiences still involve conceptual contents. In this paper, I argue that McDowell’s distinction between objects and contents of experience is central to his new view on the philosophical nature of perceptual experiences. To show the significance of this distinction, I start with a closer look at the relationship between the so-called “Travis-McDowell Debate” and McDowell’s more recent reading of Kant. Pace Cheng, I then argue that the contents of experience are still conceptual, according to McDowell, for the particular cases of experience and the general ways for things to be have the same grammar. In the end, I present some obstacles to McDowell’s idea that generalities can figure in particular cases of experience. More than a critique, I aim to give a contribution to Cheng’s discussions on the notion of “conceptuality.”

麦克道尔的新立场与普遍性问题:对程概念性概念分析的补充
本文探讨了Tony Cheng对John McDowell“概念性”概念的看法。在他的《约翰·麦克道尔论世俗主体性》的第七章中,程给出了一些理由,为什么我们应该放弃概念在麦克道尔的计划中扮演中心角色的想法。根据Cheng的说法,麦克道尔从命题到非命题的感知内容观点的转变,使人们有机会放弃具有概念性质的感知经验这一有争议的观点。麦克道尔的新立场确实承认非概念性内容。然而,程的论文漏掉了一点。麦克道尔的新立场是,知觉经验的对象不再表现出概念性,尽管他的说法是正确的,但麦克道尔坚持认为,知觉经验仍然包含概念性内容。在本文中,我认为麦克道尔对经验的对象和内容的区分是他关于感知经验的哲学本质的新观点的核心。为了说明这种区别的重要性,我首先仔细研究所谓的“特拉维斯-麦克道尔之争”与麦克道尔最近对康德的解读之间的关系。我认为经验的内容仍然是概念性的,根据麦克道尔的观点,因为经验的特殊情况和事物存在的一般方式具有相同的语法。最后,我提出了一些阻碍麦克道尔的观点,即概论可以体现在特定的经验案例中。我的目的不仅仅是批评,而是对程关于“概念性”概念的讨论做出贡献。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信