Article contents
Knowledge without Observation
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 January 2020
Extract
In answering the question, “How is the concept of a person possible?”, Strawson (Individuals. London: Methuen, 1959) lays great stress upon a particular class of predicate.
He says, “They are predicates, roughly, which involve doing something, which clearly imply intention or a state of mind or at least consciousness in general, and which indicate a characteristic pattern, or range of patterns, of bodily movement, while not indicating at all precisely any very definite sensation or experience … . Such predicates have the interesting characteristic of many P-predicates, that one does not, in general, ascribe them to oneself on the strength of observation, whereas one does ascribe them to others on the strength of observations. But, in the case of these predicates, one feels minimal reluctance to concede that what is ascribed in these two different ways is the same. This is because of the marked dominance of a fairly definite pattern of bodily movement in what they describe, and the marked absence of any distinctive experience.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Authors 1971
References
1 “Going through the movements of coiling a rope”, is like “it looks to me as if I were seeing a rope.” The first may be true whether I am coiling a rope or whether I am not. The second may be true whether I am seeing a rope or whether I am not. I think that this is an important parallel to have available when discussing perception.
2 cf, Miss Anscombe's, book Intention and article, “On Sensations of Position”, Analysis, January, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3 This marks off “intends” from “really intends” or subconsciously intends”.
4 For an interesting discussion of Miss Anscombe's position, see “Some Questions for Miss Anscombe about Intention”, David Braybooke and Others, Analysis, January, 1962.
- 3
- Cited by