哲学
Online ISSN : 1884-2380
Print ISSN : 0387-3358
ISSN-L : 0387-3358
学協会シンポジウム 「アリストテレスを見直す──その背景と達成、そして遺産──」
見ていることを感覚する
共通の感覚、内的感覚、そして意識
中畑 正志
著者情報
ジャーナル フリー

2013 年 2013 巻 64 号 p. 78-102_L8

詳細
抄録

The phenomenon described as “perceiving that one sees” or “perception of one's own perception” has attracted the attention of many philosophers. In this article, I articulate the differences between Aristotle's and Descartes' understanding of this phenomenon, with brief comments on the discussion of the same phenomenon in the Cyrenaics, Stoics and Plotinus.
In several passages Aristotle explores this phenomenon, i. e. “perceiving that one sees.” We should pay special attention to the fact that in De somno, Aristotle assumes that trans-modal discrimination (such as discrimination of sweet from white) implies this sort of higher order perception. We can explain this implication as follows: when we discriminate, for example, sweet from white, we also discriminate the respective modes of perception, namely, tasting in the perception of sweet on the one hand and seeing in the perception of white on the other. This means that Aristotle understands perceiving that one sees as an integral part of the first order perception of the external thing. This is why this second order recognition is a kind of sense-perception par excellence for Aristotle.
Descartes elucidates the phenomenon of perceiving that one sees in an opposite way from Aristotle. He separates this phenomenon from the external object that one perceives. Descartes restricts the sense-perception within one’s subjective experience and counts it as a mode of thought. This is sense-perception in its proper (praecise) sense for Descartes and what he calls conscientia (consciousness). Descartes broke the Aristotelian unity between our inner activity and its external objects, and the Cartesian concept of consciousness is a historical product of this break. By examining the explanations of the same phenomenon expounded by the Cyrenaics, Stoics and Plotinus, we can confirm its historicity.

著者関連情報
© 2013 日本哲学会
前の記事 次の記事
feedback
Top