Reidian Dual Component Theory defended

REFERENCES

• Armstrong, David. 1961. Perception and the Physical World. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
   Google Scholar
• Berkeley, George. 1998. A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge, edited by JonathanDancy. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Buras, Todd. 2002. “The Problem with Reid's Direct Realism.” The Philosophical Quarterly52: 457–477.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buras, Todd. 2006. “The Nature of Sensations in Reid.” History of Philosophy Quarterly22 (3): 221–238.
   Google Scholar
• Buras, Todd. 2008. “Three Grades of Immediate Perception: Thomas Reid's Distinctions.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research76: 603–632.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buras, Todd. 2009. “The Function of Sensations in Reid.” Journal of the History of Philosophy47 (3): 329–354.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Campbell, John. 2002. “Berkeley's Puzzle.” In Conceivability and Possibility, edited by Tamar SzaboGendler and JohnHawthorne. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Chapell. 1989. “The Theory of Sensations.” In The Philosophy of Thomas Reid, edited by MelvinDalgarno and EricMatthews. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Chisholm, Roderick M.1957. Perceiving: A Philosophical Study. New York: Cornell University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Copenhaver, Rebecca. 2010. “Thomas Reid on Acquired Perception.” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly91 (3): 285–312.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Copenhaver, Rebecca. 2004. “A Realism for Reid: Mediated but Direct.” British Journal for the History of Philosophy12 (1): 61–74.
   Google Scholar
• Dretske, Fred. 1997. Naturalizing the Mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Falkenstein, Lorne. 2000. “Reid's Account of Localization.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research61: 305–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Falkenstein, Lorne. 2002. “Hume and Reid on the Perception of Hardness.” Hume Studies (28): 27–48.
   Google Scholar
• Foster, John A.2000. The Nature of Perception. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ganson, Todd. 2008. “Reid's Rejection of Intentionalism.” Oxford Studies in Early Modern Philosophy4: 245–263.
   Google Scholar
• Grave, S. A.1960. The Scottish Philosophy of Common Sense. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harman, Gilbert. 1990. “The Intrinsic Quality of Experience.” Philosophical Perspectives4: 31–52.
   Google Scholar
• Hume, David. 2000. A Treatise of Human Understanding. Edited by David FateNorton and Mary J.Norton. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jackson, Frank. 1977. Perception: A Representative Theory. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kant, Immanuel. 2004. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics that will be able to Present Itself as a Science. Edited by GunterZoller. Translated by Peter G. Lucas and Gunter Zoller. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Madden, E. H.1986. “Was Reid a Natural Realist?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research47: 255–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackintosh, James. 1837. Dissertation on the Progress of Ethical Philosophy. 2nd ed.Edinburgh.
   Google Scholar
• Pappas, George. 1989. “Sensation and Perception in Reid.” Nous (23): 155–167.
   Google Scholar
• Pelser, Adam. 2010. “Belief in Reid's Theory of Perception.” History of Philosophy Quarterly27 (4): 359–378.
   Google Scholar
• Priestley, Joseph. 1978. An Examination. New York: Garland Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Reid, Thomas. 1895. The Works of Thomas Reid. 8th ed. Notes and Supplementary Dissertations by Sir William HamiltonEdinburgh: James Thin.
   Google Scholar
• Reid, Thomas. 1997. An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense: A Critical Edition. Edited by Derek R.Brookes. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Reid, Thomas. 2002. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man: A Critical Edition. Edited by Derek R.Brookes. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Robinson, Howard. 1994. Perception. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schopenhauer, Arthur. 1969. The World as Will and Representation. Translated by E.F.J. Payne. New York: Dover.
   Google Scholar
• Sellars, Wilfrid. 1975. “The Structure of Knowledge.” In Action, Knowledge, and Reality: Critical Studies in Honor of Wilfrid Sellars, edited by H. -N.Castaneda. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, A. D.2001. “Perception and Belief.” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research62: 283–309.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, A. D.2002. The Problem of Perception. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Somerville, James. 1995. The Enigmatic Parting Shot: What was Hume's ‘Compleat Answer to Dr. Reid and to that Bigotted Silly Fellow, Beattie’? Avebury.
   Google Scholar
• van Cleve, James. 2004. “Reid's Theory of Perception.” In The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Reid, edited by TerenceCuneo and Renevan Woudenberg, 101–133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wolterstorff, Nicholas. 2001. Thomas Reid and the Story of Epistemology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, P. B.1986. “David Hume on Thomas Reid's An Inquiry into the Human Mind, On the Principles of Common Senses: A New Letter to Hugh Blair from July 1762.” Mind95: 411–416.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar