REBATENDO O ARGUMENTO CAUSAL CONTRA O REALISMO INGÊNUO: UMA ANÁLISE DO PRINCÍPIO DE MESMAS CAUSAS/MESMOS EFEITOS DE ROBINSON
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36311/1984-8900.2024.v16n40.p238-267Keywords:
Realismo Ingênuo, Disjuntivismo, Argumento Causal, Howard Robinson, Mesmas Causas/Mesmos EfeitosAbstract
O Realismo Ingênuo postula que as percepções envolvem a consciência direta de entidades independentes da mente. Essa perspectiva sobre a percepção é frequentemente elogiada por suas supostas vantagens sobre teorias concorrentes, incluindo sua capacidade de dar conta de aspectos cognitivos, epistêmicos e fenomenais. No entanto, o Realismo Ingênuo enfrenta objeções, especialmente provenientes do Argumento Causal. Uma versão específica desse argumento, proposta por Howard Robinson, e amplamente negligenciada no discurso acadêmico, é criticamente examinada aqui. No presente estudo, ela passou por inúmeras discussões exegéticas, revelando que sua proposição central afirma que os efeitos que compartilham o mesmo padrão causal geral devem ser intrinsecamente idênticos, entrando em conflito com o realismo ingênuo. Nossa avaliação crítica do argumento mostra que essa ideia é criticada por ser um princípio causal geral implausivelmente equivocado, considerando vários contraexemplos, especialmente sobreposição de padrões causais.
References
ANSCOMBE, G. Causality and Determination. Cambridge University Press, 1971.
ARMSTRONG, D. Universals and Scientific Realism – Vol. II. A Theory of Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.
ARMSTRONG, D. A World of States of Affairs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
ARMSTRONG, D. What is a Law of Nature? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
ARMSTRONG, D. What Makes Induction Rational? Dialogue, v. 30, n. 1, 1991, p. 503–511.
BREWER, B. Perception and its objects. Oxford University Press, 2011.
BURGE, T. Disjunctivism and Perceptual Psychology. Philosophical Topics, v. 33, 2005, p. 1-78.
BURGE, T. Five Theses on de re states and attitudes. In: ALMOG, J. & LEONARDI, P. (Eds.), The Philosophy of David Kaplan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
BYRNE, A., & LOGUE, H. (2008). Either/or. In: HADDOCK, A. & MACPHERSON, F. (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
CAMPBELL, J. Reference and Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.
CAMPBELL, J. Consciousness and Reference. In MCLAUGHLIN, B; BECKERMANN, A & WALTER, S (Eds.). The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
CAMPBELL, J. Visual Attention and the Epistemic Role of Consciousness. In: MOLE, C; SMITHIES. D & WU, W (Eds.). Attention: Philosophical and Psychological Essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CARNAP, R. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1947.
CELLUCCI, C. Knowledge, Truth and Plausibility. Axiomathes, v.24, n. 4, 2014, p. 517-532.
CHALMERS, D. (2006). Perception and the Fall from Eden. In T. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual Experience (p. 49–125). Clarendon Press.
CRANE, T. What Is the Problem of Perception? Synthesis Philosophica, v. 20, n.1, 2005, p 237-264.
CRANE, T. Is There a Perceptual Relation? In: GENDLER, S. & HAWTHORNE, J. (Eds.). Perceptual Experiences. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
CRANE, T & CRAIG FRENCH. The Problem of Perception. In: ZALTA, E. (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021.
DRETSKE, F. Laws of nature. Philosophy of Science, v. 44, n.1, 1977, p 248-268.
DREWERY, A. The logical form of universal generalizations. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, vol. 83, n.1, 2005, p.373-393.
FALES, E. Causation and Universals. London: Routledge, 1990.
FISH, W. Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.
FETZER, J. The Likeness of Lawlikeness. In: COHEN, R; HOOKER, C.; MICHALOS, A, & van EVRA, J (Eds.). Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. XXXII. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1976.
GOODMAN, N. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1965.
van FRAASSEN, B. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.
HEMPEL, C. Aspects of Scientific Explanation (and Other Essays). New York: Free Press, 1965.
HEMPEL, C. Maximal Specificity and Lawlikeness in Probabilistic Explanation. Philosophy of Science, v. 35, n.1, 1968, p. 116-133.
HILL, C. Consciousness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.
HINTON, J. Experiences: An Inquiry Into Some Ambiguities. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973.
HELLIE, B. The multidisjunctive conception of hallucination. In: MAPHERSON, F (Ed.). Hallucination. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2013.
HEMPEL, C. G. The Function of General Laws in History. Journal of Philosophy, v. 39, n.2, 1942, p. 35-48.
HEMPEL, C. G. & OPPENHEIM, P. Studies in the Logic of Explanation. Philosophy of Science, v. 15, n.1., 1948.
IVANOV, I. Bad to the bone: essentially bad perceptual experiences. Inquiry, v.63, n.2., 2022.
KIM, J. Events and their Descriptions: Some Considerations. In: RESCHER, N. (Ed.), Essays in Honor of Carl G. Hempel. Dordrecht: Springer, 1969.
KIM, J. Events as property exemplifications. In: KIM, J. Supervenience and mind: Selected philosophical essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
KIM, J. Psychological Supervenience. Philosophical Studies, vol 41, n.4, 1982, p. 51- 70.
LAUDAN, L. Progress and its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1977.
LAUDAN, L. Why was the logic of discovery abandoned? In NICKLES, T. (Ed.). Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1980.
LOGUE, H. Good News for the Disjunctivist about (one of) the Bad Cases. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, vol. 86, n.1., 2013, p. 105-133.
LOUX, M. Kinds and the Dilemma of Individuation. The Review of Metaphysics, vol. 27, n.4, 1973, p. 633-652.
MACHADO, Í. What Does it Mean to be an Ontological Naïve Realist? Philosophia, v.51 n.4, 2023, p. 2035-2063.
MARTIN, M. The Reality of Appearances. In: SAINSBURY, M. (Ed.). Thought and Ontology. Milan: Franco Angeli, 1997.
MARTIN, M. Beyond Dispute: Sense-Data, Intentionality and the Mind-Body Problem. In: CRANE, T., & PATTERSON, S. (Eds.). History of the Mind-Body Problem. London: Routledge, 2001.
MARTIN, M. The Transparency of Experience. Mind & Language, v.17, n. 1, 2002, p.376-425
MARTIN, M.. The limits of self-awareness. Philosophical Studies, v.120, n.3, 2004, p. 37-89.
MARTIN, M. On being alienated. In: GENDLER, T., & HAWTHORNE, J. (Eds.). Perceptual Experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
MCDOWELL, J. Putnam on Mind and Meaning. Philosophical Topics, v.20, n.1, 1992, 35-48.
MCDOWELL, J. The Disjunctive Conception of Experience as Material for a Transcendental Argument. In: HADDOCK, A., & MACPHERSON, F. (Eds.). Disjunctivism: Perception, Action, Knowledge. Oxford University Press, 2008.
MORAN, A. Naïve Realism, Hallucination, and Causation: A New Response to the Screening Off Problem. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, v.97, n.1, 2019, 368- 382.
MORAN, A. Disjunctivism and the Causal Conditions of Hallucination. Erkenntnis, 2022, p.1-24.
LEWIS, D. Extrinsic Properties. Philosophical Studies, v. 44, n.2, 1983, 197-200.
NUDDS, M. Recent Work in Perception: Naïve Realism and its Opponents. Analysis, v. 69, n. 2, 2009, p.334-346.
PITCHER, G. A Theory of Perception. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971.
ROBINSON, H. Perception. New York: Routledge, 1994.
ROJAS, A. Consideraciones sobre la percepción desde la perspectiva enactiva. Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology, v. 24, n. 1, 2020, p. 29-49.
QUINE, W. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1960.
QUINE, W. The Roots of Reference. La Salle: Open Court, 1974.
SHOEMAKER, S. Causality and properties. In: van INWAGEN, P. (Ed.). Time and Cause. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1980.
SHOEMAKER, S. Realization and Mental Causation. In: Proceedings of the 20th World Congress in Philosophy. Cambridge: Philosophy Documentation Center, 2001, 23–33.
SCHURZ, G. Scientific explanation: A critical survey. Foundations of Science, v.1, n.3, 1995, 429-465.
SCHURZ, G. The Meta-inductivist’s Winning Strategy in the Prediction Game: A New Approach to Hume’s Problem. Philosophy of Science, v. 75, n. 3, 2008, 278-305.
SCHURZ, G. Hume’s Problem Solved: The Optimality of Meta-induction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2019.
SNOWDON, P. Perception, vision, and causation. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, v. 81, n. 1, 1980, p.175-192.
SOLLBERGER, M. Causation in Perception: A Challenge to Naïve Realism. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, v. 3, n.4, 2012, 581-595.
SOTERIOU, M. Disjunctivism. London: Routledge, 2016.
SOTERIOU, M, The Disjunctive Theory of Perception. In: ZALTA, E. (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2020.
SWINBURNE, R. Grue. Analysis, v. 28, n. 4, 1968, p.123.
TOOLEY, M. The Nature of Laws. Canadian Journal of Philosophy, v. 7, n. 4, 1977, 667-698.
VALCHARENGHI, E. (2018). As concepções continentais e naturalista/naturalizada não podem oferecer uma concepção legítima de Filosofia: Notas em defesa da concepção analítica tradicional. Pensando – Revista de Filosofia, v. 9, n. 18, 351-365.
WILLIAMSON, T. Doing Philosophy: From Common Curiosity to Logical Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
WILLIAMSON, T. How Deep Is The Distinction Between A Priori And A Posteriori Knowledge? In: CASULLO, A. & THUROW, J. (Eds.), The A Priori in Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
WILSON, J. Fundamental Determinables. Philosophers’ Imprint, v.12, n. 4, 2012, p. 1-17.
WILSON, J. Determinables and Determinates. In: ZALTA, E. (Ed.) The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2021.
YABLO, S. Mental Causation. The Philosophical Review, v., 101, n. 2, 1992, p. 245- 280.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Kínesis - Revista de Estudos dos Pós-Graduandos em Filosofia
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
