{"title":"Thought, Consciousness, and the Given","authors":"David Rosenthal","doi":"10.1111/ejop.13039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>How do we come to understand the nature of the thoughts that we and others have? And how do we come to have the conceptual resources needed to formulate such understanding? Many would say we understand the nature of thoughts simply by being subjectively aware of our own conscious thoughts. But it is unclear how consciousness could, on its own, provide the conceptual resources required for such understanding. An alternative account holds that we understand the nature of thoughts in a third-person way, by appeal to the speech acts that can express those thoughts. Such an account readily explains how we come to have the required conceptual resources. Wilfrid Sellars, in “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind” and elsewhere, developed a view along those lines, appealing to considerations related to and in the spirit of the foregoing concerns. I'll describe and defend that view against two main objections. And I'll argue that any picture of consciousness on which it could reveal the nature of thoughts is independently untenable, and also that such a picture underlies what Sellars denounced as the Myth of the Given. In closing I explain how, given that we understand the nature of thoughts in such a third-person way, some of our thoughts come to be conscious.</p>","PeriodicalId":46958,"journal":{"name":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":"33 3","pages":"1070-1087"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ejop.13039","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
How do we come to understand the nature of the thoughts that we and others have? And how do we come to have the conceptual resources needed to formulate such understanding? Many would say we understand the nature of thoughts simply by being subjectively aware of our own conscious thoughts. But it is unclear how consciousness could, on its own, provide the conceptual resources required for such understanding. An alternative account holds that we understand the nature of thoughts in a third-person way, by appeal to the speech acts that can express those thoughts. Such an account readily explains how we come to have the required conceptual resources. Wilfrid Sellars, in “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind” and elsewhere, developed a view along those lines, appealing to considerations related to and in the spirit of the foregoing concerns. I'll describe and defend that view against two main objections. And I'll argue that any picture of consciousness on which it could reveal the nature of thoughts is independently untenable, and also that such a picture underlies what Sellars denounced as the Myth of the Given. In closing I explain how, given that we understand the nature of thoughts in such a third-person way, some of our thoughts come to be conscious.
我们如何理解我们和他人思想的本质?我们是如何获得概念性资源来形成这样的理解的?许多人会说,我们理解思想的本质仅仅是通过主观地意识到我们自己有意识的思想。但目前尚不清楚的是,意识本身是如何提供这种理解所需的概念资源的。另一种解释认为,我们以第三人称的方式理解思想的本质,通过诉诸能够表达这些思想的言语行为。这样的解释很容易解释我们是如何获得所需的概念资源的。威尔弗里德·塞拉斯(Wilfrid Sellars)在《经验主义与心灵哲学》(Empiricism and Philosophy of Mind)和其他著作中,沿着这些思路发展了一种观点,呼吁人们考虑与上述问题相关的问题,并本着上述问题的精神。我将针对两个主要的反对意见来描述和捍卫这一观点。我认为,任何能揭示思想本质的意识图景都是站不住脚的,而且这种图景是塞拉斯所谴责的既定神话的基础。最后,我将解释,鉴于我们以这种第三人称的方式理解思想的本质,我们的一些思想是如何成为有意识的。
期刊介绍:
''Founded by Mark Sacks in 1993, the European Journal of Philosophy has come to occupy a distinctive and highly valued place amongst the philosophical journals. The aim of EJP has been to bring together the best work from those working within the "analytic" and "continental" traditions, and to encourage connections between them, without diluting their respective priorities and concerns. This has enabled EJP to publish a wide range of material of the highest standard from philosophers across the world, reflecting the best thinking from a variety of philosophical perspectives, in a way that is accessible to all of them.''