Why Seeing is a Problem

  • Eva Schuermann
Part of the Performance Philosophy book series (PPH)


This chapter elicits the problems that have arisen from splitting seeing into receptivity on the one hand and intellectual spontaneity on the other. It explores possible alternative theoretical approaches. Seeing as a way of disclosing the apparent, perceptible world cannot be explained in purely either physiological or cognitive terms. Specific to the faculty of seeing is its proximity to processes of understanding, thinking and interpreting. When someone notices something in someone else, they are not merely decoding certain sensory signs, but seeing and understanding at the same time. Sight and insight, seeing and ways of seeing are therefore intertwined in a way that needs to be explained against the background of an entirely different theoretical framework.


  1. Abel, Günter. 1993. Interpretationswelten. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  2. Angehrn, Emil. 2003. Interpretation und Dekonstruktion. Weilerswist: Velbrück.Google Scholar
  3. Arendt, Hannah. 1959. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Armstrong, David M. 1961. Perception and the Physical World. London: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  5. Austin, John Langshaw. 1962. Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Ayer, Alfred. 1940. The Foundation of Empirical Knowledge. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Berkeley, George. 1948. The Works of George Berkeley, Vol. 1: Philosophical Commentaries—Essay Towards a New Theory of Vision. London: Nelson.Google Scholar
  8. Böhme, Gernot. 2000. Platons theoretische Philosophie. Stuttgart: Metzler.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brandt, Reinhard. 1999. Die Wirklichkeit des Bildes. Munich: Hanser.Google Scholar
  10. Bryson, Norman, Ann Holly, Michael, and Moxey, Keith (ed.). 1994. Visual Culture: Images and Interpretations. Middletown: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Cassirer, Ernst. 1957. The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume Three: The Phenomenology of Knowledge. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Cassirer, Ernst. 1962. An Essay on Man: An Introduction in the Philosophy of Human Culture. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Chisholm, Roderick. 1957. Perceiving. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Condillac, Étienne Bonnot de. 1754. Traité des sensations. Paris: De Bure, l’aine.Google Scholar
  15. Crary, Jonathan. 1988. Modernizing Vision. In Vision and Visuality, ed. Hal Foster, 29–49. Seattle: Bay Press.Google Scholar
  16. Crary, Jonathan. 1992. Techniques of the Observer. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Crary, Jonathan. 2001. Suspensions of Perception: Attention, Spectacle, and Modern Culture. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dennett, Daniel. 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
  19. Drechsler, Martin. 1995. Sinnesdaten. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, Bd. 9, Columns 875–882, ed. Joachim Ritter et al. Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
  20. Dretske, Fred. 1969. Seeing and Knowing. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Fiedler, Konrad. 1991. Schriften zur Kunst. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
  22. Fodor, Jerry. 1990. Observation Reconsidered. In A Theory of Content and Other Essays, 231–251. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  23. Foster, Hal (ed.). 1988. Vision and Visuality. Seattle: Bay Press.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, Michel. 1995. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  25. Gabriel, Gottfried. 1997. Logisches und analogisches Denken. In Sprache und Denken, ed. Alex Burri, 370–384. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  26. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 2006. Truth and Method. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  27. Gombrich, Ernst. 1960. Art and Illusion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Goodman, Nelson. 1976. Languages of Art: An Approach to a Theory of Symbols. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  29. Goodman, Nelson. 1978. Ways of Worldmaking. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
  30. Grice, Paul. 1957. Meaning. The Philosophical Review 64: 377–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hauschild, Thomas. 1982. Der Böse Blick. Berlin: Verlag Mensch und Leben.Google Scholar
  32. Heidegger, Martin. 1996. Being and Time. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  33. Hoffman-Axthelm, Dieter. 1984. Sinnesarbeit. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.Google Scholar
  34. Hubel, David. 1988. Eye, Brain, and Vision. New York: W. H. Freeman & Co.Google Scholar
  35. Huber, Hans Dieter. 2004. Bild, Beobachter, Milieu. Ostfildern: Hatje Cantz.Google Scholar
  36. Irigaray, Luce. 1985. This Sex Which Is Not One. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Irigaray, Luce. 1987. Speculum of the Other Woman. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  38. James, William. 1950. The Principles of Psychology. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
  39. Jay, Martin. 1993. Downcast Eyes. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  40. Jencks, Christ. 1995. The Centrality of the Eye in Western Culture. In Visual Culture, 1–25. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  41. Jonas, Hans. 1954. The nobility of sight. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 14 (4): 507–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Köhler, Wolfgang. 1969. The Task of Gestalt Psychology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kompridis, Nikolas. 1993. Über Welterschließung. Deutsche Zeitschrift Für Philosophie 41 (3): 525–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Konersmann, Ralf. 1995. Sehen. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie Bd. 9, ed. Joachim Ritter et al., columns 121–161, Basel: Schwabe.Google Scholar
  45. Konersmann, Ralf. 1997. Die Augen der Philosophen. In Kritik des Sehens, 9–47. Leipzig: Reclam.Google Scholar
  46. Krämer, Sybille. 2003. Was tut Austin, indem er über das Performative spricht? In Performativität und Praxis, ed. Jens Kertscher et al., 19–33. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
  47. Krämer, Sybille. 2001. Sprache, Sprechakt, Kommunikation. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  48. Künne, Wolfgang. 1995. Sehen. Eine Sprachanalytische Betrachtung. Logos 2: 103–121.Google Scholar
  49. Langer, Susanne K. 1979. Philosophy in a New Key: A Study in the Symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Levin, David (ed.). 1993. Modernity and the Hegemony of Vision. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  51. Locke, John. 1975. An essay Concerning Human Understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. MacIntyre, Alasdair. 2007. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  53. Majetschak, Stefan. 1989. Welt als Begriff und Welt als Kunst. Philosophisches Jahrbuch 96: 276–293.Google Scholar
  54. McDowell, John. 1994. Mind and World. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Merleau-Ponty, Maurice. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Mirzoeff, Nicholas (ed.). 1999. An Introduction to Visual Culture. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  57. Moore, George Edward. 1953. Some Main Problems of Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd.Google Scholar
  58. Nelson, R. (ed.). 2000. Visuality Before and Beyond the Renaissance: Seeing as Others Saw. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Orth, Ernst Wolfgang. 1992. Ernst Cassirers Philosophie der symbolischen Formen und ihre Bedeutung für unsere Gegenwart. Deutsche Zeitschrift Für Philosophie 40 (1/2): 119–136.Google Scholar
  60. Plümacher, Martina. 2004. Wahrnehmung, Repräsentation und Wissen. Berlin: Parerga.Google Scholar
  61. Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1953a. On What There Is. In From a Logical Point of View, 1–19. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1953b. Two Dogmas of Empiricism. In From a Logical Point of View, 21–46. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Recki, Birgit. 2004. Kultur als Praxis. Berlin: De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ricœur, Paul. 1984, 1985, 1988. Time and Narrative, 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  65. Rock, Irvin. 1985. The Logic of Perception. New York: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Rorty, Richard. 1989. Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Rorty, Richard. 1998. Robert Brandom on Social Practices and Representations. In Truth and Progress, Philosophical Papers, Volume 3, 122–137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Ruskin, John. 1858. The Elements of Drawing. London: Smith, Elder & Co.Google Scholar
  69. Schildknecht, Christiane. 1999. Aspekte des Nichtpropositionalen. Bonn: Bouvier.Google Scholar
  70. Schildknecht, Christiane. 2003. Anschauungen ohne Begriffe? Deutsche Zeitschrift Für Philosophie 51: 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schumacher, Ralph. 2004. Die kognitive Undurchdringbarkeit optischer Täuschungen. George Berkeleys Theorie visueller Wahrnehmung im Kontext neuerer Ansätze. Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung 58.4: 505–525.Google Scholar
  72. Schwemmer, Oswald. 1997. Ernst Cassirer. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  73. Searle, John. 1983. Intentionality: An Essay in the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Seel, Martin. 2004. Aesthetics of Appearing. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  75. Seel, Martin. 2002. Über Richtigkeit und Wahrheit. In Sich bestimmen lassen, 45–67. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  76. Sellars, Wilfrid. 1956. Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind. Cambridge: Harvard Press.Google Scholar
  77. Silverman, Kaja. 1997. Dem Blickregime begegnen. In Privileg Blick, ed. Christian Kravagna, 41–64. Berlin: Id-Verlag.Google Scholar
  78. Simon, Gérard. 1992. Der Blick, das Sein und die Erscheinung in der antiken Optik. Munich: Fink.Google Scholar
  79. Simon, Josef, and Stegmaier, Werner (ed.). 1994. Zeichen und Interpretation, 4 Vols. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  80. Singer, Wolf. 2005. Das Bild im Kopf – aus neurobiologischer Perspektive. In Sichtweisen, ed. Bernhard Graf et al., 143–160. Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Strawson, Peter. 1979. Perception and its Objects. In Perception and Identity, ed. Graham F. Macdonald, 41–60. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Taylor, Charles. 1985. Self-Interpreting Animals. In Human Agency and Language, 45–76. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Taylor, Charles. 2010. What Is Agency? In Philosophical Papers: Human Agency and Language, Vol. 1, 15–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  84. Thomä, Dieter. 1998. Erzähle Dich selbst. Munich: Beck.Google Scholar
  85. Welsch, Wolfgang. 2000. Hegel und die analytische Philosophie. Information Philosophie 1: 7–23.Google Scholar
  86. Wiesing, Lambert (ed.). 2002. Philosophie der Wahrnehmung. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eva Schuermann
    • 1
  1. 1.Otto-von-Guericke UniversityMagdeburgGermany

Personalised recommendations