We-experiences, common knowledge and the mode approach to collective intentionality
Blomberg, Olle LU
(2018)
In Journal of Social Philosophy
49(1).
p.183-203
- Abstract
- According to we-mode accounts of collective intentionality, an experience is a “we-experience”—that is, part of a jointly attentional episode—in virtue of the way or mode in which the content of the experience is given to the subject of experience. These accounts are supposed to explain how a we-experience can have the phenomenal character of being given to the subject “as ours” rather than merely “as my experience” (Zahavi 2015), and do so in a relatively conceptually and cognitively undemanding way. Galotti and Frith (2013) and Schmitz (2017) present we-mode accounts that are supposed to, in particular, avoid the need for the subjects of experience to have common knowledge of each other’s perceptual beliefs. In this paper, drawing in... (More)
- According to we-mode accounts of collective intentionality, an experience is a “we-experience”—that is, part of a jointly attentional episode—in virtue of the way or mode in which the content of the experience is given to the subject of experience. These accounts are supposed to explain how a we-experience can have the phenomenal character of being given to the subject “as ours” rather than merely “as my experience” (Zahavi 2015), and do so in a relatively conceptually and cognitively undemanding way. Galotti and Frith (2013) and Schmitz (2017) present we-mode accounts that are supposed to, in particular, avoid the need for the subjects of experience to have common knowledge of each other’s perceptual beliefs. In this paper, drawing in part on Schutz’s (1932/1967; 1953) writings on “the pure We-relationship”, I argue that appeal to a we-mode does not render common knowledge unnecessary. To explain when we-experiences are veridical, we-mode accounts must (i) explain how a we-experience can enable rational interpersonal coordination in some high-risk situations and (ii) explain why what is experienced is “out in the open” between the subjects of the we-experience. To do this, proponents of we-mode accounts need an account of common knowledge. In addition, they must specify which inferences hold between we-mode and I-mode attitudes, and explain why these inferences hold. In light of this, we-mode accounts fare no better than content accounts in illuminating how basic forms of collective intentionality are possible. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/618d7244-1fe2-400c-9b21-53a0c9574f65
- author
- Blomberg, Olle
LU
- organization
- publishing date
- 2018
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- in
- Journal of Social Philosophy
- volume
- 49
- issue
- 1
- pages
- 183 - 203
- publisher
- John Wiley & Sons Inc.
- external identifiers
-
- scopus:85045252174
- ISSN
- 1467-9833
- DOI
- 10.1111/josp.12221
- project
- Metaphysics and Collectivity
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- id
- 618d7244-1fe2-400c-9b21-53a0c9574f65
- date added to LUP
- 2017-10-14 15:48:28
- date last changed
- 2022-01-30 23:29:23
@article{618d7244-1fe2-400c-9b21-53a0c9574f65,
abstract = {{According to we-mode accounts of collective intentionality, an experience is a “we-experience”—that is, part of a jointly attentional episode—in virtue of the way or mode in which the content of the experience is given to the subject of experience. These accounts are supposed to explain how a we-experience can have the phenomenal character of being given to the subject “as ours” rather than merely “as my experience” (Zahavi 2015), and do so in a relatively conceptually and cognitively undemanding way. Galotti and Frith (2013) and Schmitz (2017) present we-mode accounts that are supposed to, in particular, avoid the need for the subjects of experience to have common knowledge of each other’s perceptual beliefs. In this paper, drawing in part on Schutz’s (1932/1967; 1953) writings on “the pure We-relationship”, I argue that appeal to a we-mode does not render common knowledge unnecessary. To explain when we-experiences are veridical, we-mode accounts must (i) explain how a we-experience can enable rational interpersonal coordination in some high-risk situations and (ii) explain why what is experienced is “out in the open” between the subjects of the we-experience. To do this, proponents of we-mode accounts need an account of common knowledge. In addition, they must specify which inferences hold between we-mode and I-mode attitudes, and explain why these inferences hold. In light of this, we-mode accounts fare no better than content accounts in illuminating how basic forms of collective intentionality are possible.}},
author = {{Blomberg, Olle}},
issn = {{1467-9833}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{1}},
pages = {{183--203}},
publisher = {{John Wiley & Sons Inc.}},
series = {{Journal of Social Philosophy}},
title = {{We-experiences, common knowledge and the mode approach to collective intentionality}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/josp.12221}},
doi = {{10.1111/josp.12221}},
volume = {{49}},
year = {{2018}},
}