選言主義在這個論文當中是指在知覺哲學當中的一個特定的理論。它最核心的主張是我們應該拒斥真實知覺與不真實知覺之間所分享的共同性，目的是為了防止懷疑論的攻擊。本篇論文的目的就是為了辯護這種立場的一個版本。 在我討論選言主義之前，我會在第一章先勾勒知覺哲學的議題的大概。在第二章，我會批評三種不同的表徵主義作為解釋知覺經驗的現象特質的理論。在第三章，我會討論麥克•馬丁的選言主義。由於他的立場過於極端，他的理論反對所以共同性在真實知覺與不真實知覺之間，並且蘊含在幻覺情況下，我們是無法知覺到任何的現象特質的。在最後一章，我會說明並且辯護我的立場。我的立場是宣稱知覺經驗具有表徵內容，用來說明現象特質，並且堅守選言主義的立場，解釋真實經驗與不真實經驗的現象特質不是訴諸相同的說明。我的主張看似不太融貫，因為知覺經驗的現象特質若是可以由表徵內容全部解釋，那為什麼還需要外在世界的對象呢。我會在本篇論文中說明為什麼我的主張是融貫的。 / Disjunctivism, in this thesis, refers to a specific position in philosophy of perception. The kernel of disjunctivism is that we should reject certain commonalities between veridical perception and non-veridical perception in order to preserve the relation between our perceptual experience and the world. The aim of this thesis is to defend one version of this position. Before I discuss the disjunctivism, I articulate the problem of perception in Chapter I and criticize three versions of intentionalism in Chapter II. Then, in Chapter III, I reject Mike Martin’s extreme position of disjunctivism. I defend my only theory in the last chapter that consists in the disjunctivists’ main concern that perception is in a relation to the external world (in order to resist the skeptics) and the intentionalists’ insight that the phenomenal character of experience is wholly explained by the intentionality of experience. My thesis prima facie sounds not coherent. It is because if the phenomenal character of experience can be wholly explained by the intentionality, it is not necessary to take the external objects into account. I will articulate why and how my thesis is coherent in this essay.

It is widely accepted, amongst epistemologists, that evidence plays an important role in our epistemic life. Crucially, there is no agreement on what evidence is. Following Silins, we can cash out the disagreement around the notion of evidence in terms of the opposition between Evidential Internalism and Evidential Externalism (Silins, 2005). Evidential internalists claim that evidence supervenes on one's non-factive mental states, such as, beliefs, impressions (BonJour, 1999, Audi, 2001). Evidential Externalists deny that. In this Thesis, first, I contrastively assess the plausibility of two prominent contemporary externalist theories: Duncan Pritchard's Epistemological Disjunctivism, the thesis on which one's evidence in perceptual cases is truth-entailing and reflectively accessible (Pritchard, 2012), and Timothy Williamson's E=K, the thesis on which one's evidence is all and only the propositions one knows (Williamson, 2000). Second, I develop a novel externalist account of evidence that I call Ecumenical Evidentialism. I show how Ecumenical Evidentialism is able to bring together some of the benefits of both Pritchard's Disjunctivism and Williamson's E=K. This Thesis is structured into three sections, each of which addresses the following three questions respectively: Does the Access Problem represent a real threat to Evidential Externalism? Is Evidential Externalism committed to a sceptical variety of Infallibilism? How does Evidential Externalism understand the relation between evidence and epistemic justification? I argue that neither Epistemological Disjunctivism nor E=K are fully satisfying Externalist accounts of evidence. On one hand, I argue that Disjunctivism captures the orthodox intuition on which justification is a matter of being evidence-responsive, but it does so on pain of facing the so-called Access Problem. On the other hand, by rejecting any strong accessibility thesis, Williamson's E=K is better positioned to resist both the Access Problem as well as the Infallibility Problem, but it does not vindicate the orthodox intuition on which justification is a matter of being evidence-responsive. Finally, I show that, while retaining the main commitments of Williamson's theory of evidence, such as, E=K, my Ecumenical Evidentialism is able to capture the orthodox responsiveness intuition about epistemic justification.

This dissertation constructively explores the implications for natural theology of (especially) John McDowell’s anti-Cartesian philosophy of mind and perception. Traditionally, an important element within natural theology is the idea that nature testifies to its creator, thereby making knowledge of a creator available to humans. In traditional accounts, the relevant knowledge is usually conceived as inferential. From observations of “the things that have been made” (Rom 1: 20), we may reason our way to the existence of a creator. The dissertation presents an alternative construal of creation’s testimony. It argues that biological nature may have expressive properties of a similar kind as human behaviour and art seem to have. We may be able to perceive nature as creation, i.e., as expressive of the mind of a creator. The knowledge of a creator acquired from nature is, according to this construal, perceptual rather than inferential. The viability of the dissertation’s suggestion depends, however, on the rejection of certain common and fundamental assumptions about the nature of mind and perception – assumptions that may rightly be called “Cartesian.” In chapters 1-3, a radically anti-Cartesian outlook on mind and perception, drawn mainly from McDowell’s work, is presented. The outlook (labelled “open-mindedness”) conceives the mind as a system of essentially world-involving capacities. One such capacity is perception, which is portrayed as (when all goes well) a direct, cognitive openness to the world. Chapter 4 argues that open-mindedness makes an attractive construal of our knowledge of “other minds” available. Human behaviour may, as McDowell suggests, be construed as having expressive properties, i.e., perceivable properties the instantiation of which logically entails the instantiation of certain mental properties. The main problem confronting this idea is the so-called “argument from pretence” – a version of the more general “argument from illusion.” The fact that behaviour that is the result of pretence can be indistinguishable, for an observer, from behaviour that is genuinely expressive of the mental property pain, can seem to entail that it is impossible to perceive that somebody else is in pain. It is argued that accepting the outlook of open-mindedness and the view of perception it includes dissolves this problem and makes it possible to construe (some of) our knowledge of the mental states of other people as perceptual rather than inferential knowledge. Chapter 5 argues that the same philosophical moves that dissolve the “problem of other minds” also can be used to overcome the problems confronting the (from a Christian perspective) attractive idea that nature may be perceptibly expressive of the mind of a creator. It is argued that the idea that other phenomena than human behaviour can be genuinely expressive of mind is not at all counter-intuitive. Artworks have, for instance, (according to a common view) expressive properties that make something of the mental life of the artist available to others. Furthermore, many people seem to have experiences in which natural structures appear to them as intentionally created. Even atheists report that biological organisms strike them as “designed.” Experiences in which natural phenomena appear to the subject as intentionally created or “designed” are candidates for being veridical perceptions of expressive properties in nature. It is argued that the suggested construal of biological nature as expressive of the mind of a creator is completely compatible with the fact that biological species have evolved by natural selection. Chapter 6 briefly reflects on the consequences of the dissertation’s argument for Christian theology.

This dissertation concerns the location and nature of phenomenal qualities. Arguably, these qualities naively seem to belong to perceived external objects. However, we also seem to experience phenomenal qualities in hallucinations, and in hallucinations we do not perceive any external objects. I present and argue for a theory of the phenomenal qualities, "brain theory", which claims that all phenomenal qualities we experience are physical properties instantiated in the brain, regardless of whether they are experienced in veridical perceptions or in hallucinations. I begin by more carefully identifying the phenomenal qualities, discussing how they are related to "qualia" and "phenomenal character". Then I present brain theory, and investigate its implications for the perceptual relations we stand in to external objects, noting that it is mostly neutral. I also compare brain theory to a similar theory of perception advocated by Bertrand Russell. Next, I provide an overview over the competing theories of phenomenal qualities, and relate them to theories of perception, such as representationalism, qualia theory, sense data theory and disjunctivism. The majority of my argumentation for brain theory focuses on arguing that the phenomenal qualities are instantiated in the brain, rather than on arguing that they are physical properties. Instead, I largely assume physicalism. However, even independently of the physicalism assumption, I show that we have reason to believe that phenomenal qualities are experienced in hallucinations, and that qualities experienced in hallucinations are instantiated in internal objects, such as our brains or sense data. In the first step towards this conclusion I argue that theories which deny that phenomenal qualities are experienced in hallucinations face serious problems. In the next step I argue that theories which deny that phenomenal qualities experienced in hallucinations are instantiated in internal objects face serious problems. Finally, an important part of the argumentation is my replies to objections against brain theory, including common sense objections and the "observation objection". From these conclusions, together with the physicalism assumption, I infer that we have reason to believe that brain theory is true about hallucinations. On this basis, I then argue, through a generalizing argument, that the same is the case for veridical perceptions.

La question centrale de cette étude est celle de savoir si les expériences perceptives peuvent être conçues comme des manières d’être réellement en contact avec le monde et si elles peuvent nous fournir des raisons d’entretenir certaines propositions à propos du monde, voire nous permettre d’acquérir des connaissances à son sujet. Cette compréhension intuitive de la perception est aujourd’hui comme hier largement combattue. Ce rejet passe généralement par l’adoption d’une forme ou d’une autre d’internalisme (de la perception et/ou de la justification et de la connaissance perceptive). Percevoir serait un phénomène purement ou essentiellement interne aux sujets dotés de capacités perceptives dont on pourrait douter qu’il puisse nous permettre de croire de manière justifiée ou de connaître quoi que ce soit. Peut-on éviter cette conclusion ? Peut-on apaiser les angoisses philosophiques qu’elle fait apparaître (sans pourtant affirmer y mettre fin ou encore qu’elles n’ont aucun sens) ? Tel est le but de cette étude. L’enquête philosophique proposée ici prend essentiellement trois formes: métaphysique, ontologique et épistémologique. Une investigation de la nature métaphysique de l’expérience perceptive est ensuite mise en œuvre. L’enjeu est alors de soutenir une forme assez robuste d’externalisme de la perception (Disjonctivisme métaphysique). De la nature de la perception, nous en venons dans une seconde partie à une réflexion ontologique sur la nature des propriétés avec lesquelles l’expérience perceptive nous met semble-t-il en contact. Le réalisme de la couleur est défendu contre diverses attaques antiréalistes. Les couleurs sont des propriétés réelles des choses auxquelles on les attribue correctement. Une ontologie réaliste, non réductive et non relationnelle des propriétés chromatiques est esquissée (Primitivisme de la couleur). Enfin, les enjeux épistémologiques de la perception sont mis en lumière et discutés. Nous défendons l’idée que l’expérience perceptive, en tant qu’elle nous met véritablement en contact avec le monde (objets, propriétés, faits, etc.), est un moyen par lequel certains êtres peuvent entretenir des croyances justifiées quoique cette justification soit non réflexive et prima facie. Différentes réponses aux attaques sceptiques contre la possibilité de connaître perceptivement certaines propositions sont enfin envisagées et rejetées. Une autre stratégie anti-sceptique est proposée (une défense néo-mooréenne de la possibilité de la connaissance perceptive, et une remise en cause du défi sceptique lui-même). Finalement, à la question philosophique classique « L’esprit peut-il réellement être en contact perceptif et cognitif avec le monde ? », rien ne nous force à répondre par la négative, que cette question soit abordée du point de vue de la métaphysique de la perception, d’un point de vue ontologique ou épistémologique. Du moins, c’est ce que notre étude cherche à montrer en soulignant à la fois qu’une réponse positive à cette question est parfaitement viable, voire correcte, et que la réponse négative a, quant à elle, toutes les chances d’être passablement erronée / The main topic of this study is to discuss the idea according to which perceptual experiences sould be conceive as ways of being in contact with the world and perceptual experiences can give reasons for believing some propositions about the world and can give rise to knowledge. Lots of philosophers countervail this intuitive and naive conception of perception. This rejection is linked to the fact that they adopt an internalist conception of perception and/or justication and/or perceptual knowledge. Perceiving sould be conceive as an purely internal event of subjects which possess perceptual capacities. And so, one may doubt that they can have justifications for their beliefs or that they can know anything. Is it possible to avoid this conclusion ? How to alleviate philosophical fear that this conclusion gives rise ? That is the aim of this study. The proposed philosophical inquiry comes in three forms. In the first place, indirect conception of perception is examined and criticized. Afterwards, an inquiry about the nature of perceptual experience is pursued. The stake for us is to defend a strong form of externalism about perception (metaphysical disjunctivism). Then, in the second part of this work, we get into an ontological reflexion about the nature of properties that perceptual experience seems to acquaintance us with. Color Realism is defended against various antirealist objections. Colors are or can be real properties of things. A realist, non redutive and non relationnal ontology for chromatic properties is sketched (color Primitivism). Lastly, the epistemological stakes of perception are underlined and examined. We defend the idea that perceptual experience is a mean by which certain beings can have justified beliefs although this justification is not reflexive and prima facie. It can be so if it's true that perceptual experience puts us in contact with the world (objects, properties, facts, etc.). We examine and reject different replies to skeptical attacks against the possibility of knowing anything. Then, another strategy is proposed (a morean defense of perceptual knowledge and the questioning of skeptical challenge itself). In fact, from an metaphysical, ontological or epistemological point of view, we don't have to give a negative reponse to the classical and philosophical question "Can mind be really in perceptual and cognitive contact with the world ?" or so we think. Indeed, our study underlines that a positive reply to this question is sustainable, not to say correct, and that the negative reponse is probably wrong