Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T20:37:55.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The extension of color sensations: Reid, Stewart, and Fearn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Giovanni B. Grandi
Giovanni B. Grandi*
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus, Irving K. Barber School of Arts and Sciences, 1147 Research Road, Kelowna, BC, Canada, V1V 1V7
*
*Email: giovanni.grandi@ubc.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

According to Reid, color sensations are not extended nor are they arranged in figured patterns. Reid further claimed that ‘there is no sensation appropriated to visible figure.’ Reid justified these controversial claims by appeal to Cheselden's report of the experiences of a young man affected by severe cataracts, and by appeal to cases of perception of visible figure without color. While holding fast to the principle that sensations are not extended, Dugald Stewart (1753–1828) tried to show that ‘a variety of colour sensations is a necessary means for the perception of visible figure.’ According to John Fearn (1768–1837), two motives appear to be central to Reid's views about color sensations and extension: his commitment to the Cartesian doctrine of the immateriality of the soul, and his attempt to evade ‘Hume's dilemma’ about the existence and immateriality of the soul.

Keywords

visioncolorsensationextensionmind-body dualismThomas ReidDugald StewartJohn Fearn
Type
Perception
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue S1: New Essays on Reid , July 2011 , pp. 50 - 79
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Atherton, Margaret 2005. “Reading Lady Mary Shepherd.” Harvard Review of Philosophy 13 (2): 73–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bréhier, Émile 1937. “Matière cartesienne et creation.” Revue de Métaphysique et Morale 44 (1): 21–34.Google Scholar
Brown, Thomas 1820. Lectures on the Philosophy of the Human Mind. Edinburgh: Tait.Google Scholar
Falkenstein, Lorne 2000. “Reid's Account of Localization.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2): 305–328.10.2307/2653653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenstein, Lorne 2005. “Condillac's Paradox.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 43 (4): 403–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Falkenstein, Lorne and Grandi, Giovanni 2003. “The Role of Material Impressions in Reid's Theory of Vision: A Critique of Gideon Yaffe's‘ Reid on the Perception of Visible Figure’.” Journal of Scottish Philosophy 1 (2): 117–133.10.3366/jsp.2003.1.2.117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fearn, John 1810/1812. An Essay on Consciousness; or a Series of Evidences of a Distinct Mind. 1st edition 1810, 2nd edition 1812. London: Printed by Cock, D.; and Published by Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown; and by Black, Parry, and Kingbury.Google Scholar
Fearn, John 1813a. A Review of First Principles of Bishop Berkeley, Dr. Reid, and Professor Stewart. With an Indication of Other Principles. London: Printed by Cock, D. for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown; and Black and Parry.Google Scholar
Fearn, John 1813b. Essay on External Perception. Enlarged edition, appended to A Review of First Principles of Bishop Berkeley, Dr. Reid, and Professor Stewart. London: Printed by Cock, D. for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown; and Black and Parry.Google Scholar
Fearn, John 1815a. A Demonstration of the Principles of Primary Vision. With the Consequent State of Philosophy in Great Britain. London: Printed by Cock, D. for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown; and Black and Parry.Google Scholar
Fearn, John 1815b. A Demonstration of Necessary Connexion. London: Printed by D., Cock for Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme and Brown; and Black and Parry.Google Scholar
Fearn, John 1818. “A Letter to Professor Stewart, on the Objects of General Terms and on the Axiomatical Laws of Vision. Second Edition. To which are here added some Remarks on the Monthly Review on this Subject.” In The Pamphleteer. vol. 12. London: Printed by Valpy, A.J. Sold by Fenner; Lloyd; Black; Kingbury, Parbury, and Allen.Google Scholar
Fearn, John 1820. First Lines of the Human Mind. London: Printed by Valpy, A.J.; and Sold by Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown; Black, Kingbury, Parbury and Allen; and Roland Hunter. [References by chapter, section, and page numbers].Google Scholar
Fearn, John 1829. A Manual of the Physiology of Mind, Comprehending the First Principles of Physical Theology: with which are Laid Out the Crucial Objections to the Reidian Theory. To which is Suffixed a Paper on the Logic of Relations Considered as a Machine for Rationative Science. London: Printed by A.J. Valpy; Sold by Longman, Rees, Orme, and Green; and Hunter. [References by section and page numbers].Google Scholar
Fearn, John 1837. An Appeal to Philosophers, by Name, on the Demonstration of Vision in the Brain, and Against the Attack by Sir David Brewster on the Rationale of Cerebral Vision. London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown and Green.Google Scholar
Hatfield, Gary 1990. The Natural and the Normative: Theories of Spatial Perception from Kant to Helmholtz. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David 2000. A Treatise of Human Nature, edited by Norton, David Fate and Norton, Mary J. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [References by book, part, section, and paragraph numbers].Google Scholar
Hutcheson, Francis 2002. An Essay on the Nature and Conduct of Passions and Affections, with Illustrations on Moral Sense, edited by Aaron Garrett. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Morgan, Michael J. 1977. Molyneux's Question: Vision, Touch and the Philosophy of Perception. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nichols, Ryan 2007. Thomas Reid's Theory of Perception. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pastore, Nicholas 1971. Selective History of Theories of Visual Perception: 1650–1950. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas 1880. The Works of D.D., Thomas Reid with Notes and Supplementary Dissertations, edited by William Hamilton. 2 vols, 8thedition. Edinburgh: MacLachlan and Stewart.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas 1995. Thomas Reid on the Animate Creation: Papers Relating to the Life Sciences, edited by Paul, Wood University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas 1997.An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense: A Critical Edition, edited by Brookes, Derek R. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. [References by chapter, section, page, and line numbers].Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas 2002a. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man: A Critical Edition, edited by Brookes, Derek R. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press. [References by essay, chapter, page, and line numbers].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Thomas 2002b. The Correspondence of Thomas Reid, edited by Wood, Paul University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas 2012. Selected Philosophical Writings, edited by Grandi, Giovanni B. Exeter: Imprint Academic.Google Scholar
Stewart, Dugald 1792. Elements of the Philosophy of the Human Mind. London: A. Strahan and T. Cadell, and Edinburgh: W. Creech.Google Scholar
Stewart, Dugald 1854. Dissertation: Exhibiting the Progress of Metaphysical, Ethical and Political Philosophy since the Revival of Letters in Europe. In The Collected Works of Dugald Stewart, edited by Hamilton, William Vol. 1. Edinburgh: T. Constable.Google Scholar
Stewart, Dugald 1855. Philosophical Essays. In The Collected Works of Dugald Stewart, edited by Hamilton, William Vol. 5. Edinburgh: T. Constable.Google Scholar
Yaffe, Gideon 2003a. “Reid on the Perception of Visible Figure.” Journal of Scottish Philosophy 1 (2): 103–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yaffe, Gideon 2003b. “The Office of an Introspectible Sensation: A Reply to Falkenstein and Grandi.” Journal of Scottish Philosophy 1 (2): 135–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar