Skip to main content

Imagination and Experience: Philosophical Explorations

Today's post is by Ingrid Vendrell Ferran (University of Marburg) and Christiana Werner (University of Duisburg-Essen) about their recently edited book, Imagination and Experience: Philosophical Explorations (Routledge 2024).

Recent approaches in philosophy of mind and epistemology have shown a growing interest in examining the nature of phenomenal knowledge and the epistemic value of having an experience. The basic idea in these debates has been that having an experience has a unique character and provides the experiencer with a kind of knowledge which otherwise cannot be achieved. As expressed by an ancient proverb: “Experience is the best teacher.” That there is a specific type of knowledge we can only gain by means of experience is a claim defended in the debate about the mind–body problem and consciousness (e.g., Nagel 1974; Jackson 1982), and in the debate on the so-called “knowledge argument” in particular. 

Christiana Werner

Simultaneously, the philosophy of imagination has emerged as a new field of research. That we can only imagine what we have experienced before is a widespread view on imagination and was advocated by prominent philosophers of the last century, such as Wittgenstein (1989) and Sartre (2010). However, while in previous decades the role of imagining for the achievement of knowledge was regarded with scepticism, in recent debates on imagination, philosophers such as Kind (e.g., 2020) have challenged the traditional consensus and argued that we can imagine beyond the limits of past experiences. Indeed, imagination can provide knowledge of different kinds. 

Ingrid Vendrell Ferran

This volume aims at bringing together these two philosophical areas of research. The main impulse to do so comes from new arguments in manifold philosophical debates such as on the mind–body problem, feminist philosophy, the philosophy of oppression, epistemic ontology, and empathy. These debates suggest the necessity of examining how the two areas of research interrelate and can enrich each other. Our book gathers together these two fields and, in so doing, fills a lacuna in the current research. 

The chapters of the volume examine topics related to the overlap and intersection of both areas. In particular, it explores ontological, epistemological, phenomenological, psychological, and intersubjective issues common to both areas as well as the different ways in which philosophical analyses of experience can enrich our understanding of imagination and vice versa. The volume is divided into four main parts. The first consists of novel contributions to epistemic issues written by Frank Jackson, Uriah Kriegel, Yuri Cath, and Margherita Arcangeli regarding how imagination contributes to obtaining knowledge of an experience. The second part which contains contributions by Peter Langland-Hassan, Alon Chasid, Anna Ichino, Bence Nanay, and Alberto Voltolini is concerned with the ontology and the normativity of imagination and experience. The third part which focuses on a series of issues regarding the phenomenology of imaginative experiences contains chapters written by Martina Fürst, Christiana Werner, Nick Wiltsher, Íngrid Vendrell Ferran, Julien Bugnon and Martine Nida-Rümelin. The final part focuses on the role of imagining in the experience of other minds. The contributors of this last part of the volume are Julien Bugnon, Martine Nida-Rümelin, Heidi L. Maibom, Gerson Reuter, Matthias Vogel, Karsten R. Stueber, Amy Kind, and Thimothy Williamson.

Popular posts from this blog

Delusions in the DSM 5

This post is by Lisa Bortolotti. How has the definition of delusions changed in the DSM 5? Here are some first impressions. In the DSM-IV (Glossary) delusions were defined as follows: Delusion. A false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary. The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture (e.g., it is not an article of religious faith). When a false belief involves a value judgment, it is regarded as a delusion only when the judgment is so extreme as to defy credibility.

Rationalization: Why your intelligence, vigilance and expertise probably don't protect you

Today's post is by Jonathan Ellis , Associate Professor of Philosophy and Director of the Center for Public Philosophy at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Eric Schwitzgebel , Professor of Philosophy at the University of California, Riverside. This is the first in a two-part contribution on their paper "Rationalization in Moral and Philosophical thought" in Moral Inferences , eds. J. F. Bonnefon and B. Trémolière (Psychology Press, 2017). We’ve all been there. You’re arguing with someone – about politics, or a policy at work, or about whose turn it is to do the dishes – and they keep finding all kinds of self-serving justifications for their view. When one of their arguments is defeated, rather than rethinking their position they just leap to another argument, then maybe another. They’re rationalizing –coming up with convenient defenses for what they want to believe, rather than responding even-handedly to the points you're making. Yo

A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind

Today's post is by  Karen Yan (National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University) on her recent paper (co-authored with Chuan-Ya Liao), " A co-citation analysis of cross-disciplinarity in the empirically-informed philosophy of mind " ( Synthese 2023). Karen Yan What drives us to write this paper is our curiosity about what it means when philosophers of mind claim their works are informed by empirical evidence and how to assess this quality of empirically-informedness. Building on Knobe’s (2015) quantitative metaphilosophical analyses of empirically-informed philosophy of mind (EIPM), we investigated further how empirically-informed philosophers rely on empirical research and what metaphilosophical lessons to draw from our empirical results.  We utilize scientometric tools and categorization analysis to provide an empirically reliable description of EIPM. Our methodological novelty lies in integrating the co-citation analysis tool with the conceptual resources from the philosoph