Discussion of Bill Brewer's “Perceptual Experience and Empirical Reason”

Empirical reason: Answers to Gupta, McDowell, and Siegel

“…The remainder of Siegel's () comments specifically directed at me focus on one of the arguments that I offer for Object View of perception, (OV), which I endorse in earlier work (2011) and modify as above in my discussions of perceptual experience and empirical reason that are the direct concern of this exchange (Brewer, ; Brewer et al., ). The argument runs as follows.…”

“…Yet I explicitly reject Factual Reasons Priority in favour of the strictly weaker Objectual Reasons Priority, the thesis that in seeing that o is F, in the primary cases that I am concerned with here, in which S is acquainted with o's Fness, S is thereby visually conscious of an objectual reason to apply F: a concrete feature of the world that makes her judgement true. My contention is that this is crucial to the explanation of why seeing that o is F in such cases is, as it undeniably is, a way of knowing that o is F (Brewer ; Brewer et al., ). Gupta claims that my move to the disjunctive account is therefore objectionably inconsistent with other features of my position that he perfers.…”

Empirical reason: Questions for Gupta, McDowell, and Siegel

“…Which objects and features these are shapes our consciousness in having the experiences in question. So we are conscious of what I call objectual reasons for some but not other beliefs (2018c, Brewer et al., ). Knowledgeably arriving at those beliefs requires our recognition or registration of what we perceive as what it is, and this depends on our possession of the relevant concepts and knowledge about the world that we bring with them.…”

Experience and its rational significance I: Contributions to a debate

“…They are insufficient to render it evident to the subject that the object is yellow. (See David de Bruijn's remarks in Brewer et al., : 19–20).) Brewer makes two changes in his position, one of which seems to me good and the other problematic.…”

“…Brewer has recently revised his position in significant ways (Brewer et al., : 21–22), and I wish to comment on the revision. The revision aims to correct an error in Brewer's original position.…”