{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016430853491556367, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0013692377909630307, 'mean_word_length': 5.466076696165191, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 1, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Limits of Moral Authority

a commitment to some version of the latter. Soteriou stresses that assessing this issue, as well as formulating a strict taxonomy of disjunctivist requirements, is not a matter of quick generalizations, but must be based on a careful consideration of the ‘claims, concerns, and arguments that are being advanced’ (208). By way of concluding remarks, Soteriou offers the first systematic and in-depth introduction to the central themes and protagonists of one of the most controversial and debated theories of perception of the past decades. Postgraduate and advanced undergraduate students will benefit from the book both as a standalone overview of disjunctivism and as critical companion to some of its central texts. They will find the frequent in-text recaps and content summaries useful to better grasp the highly technical issues discussed. Furthermore, each chapter has an annotated bibliography covering the main topics examined and a glossary of key terms and concepts is provided to help students navigate the complex material in the main text. More experienced researchers will also benefit from Soteriou’s analysis of a number of controversial issues at the focus of current debates on disjunctivism, including for instance the relation between metaphysical and epistemological disjunctivism, the challenge of providing a satisfactory account of non-veridical perception, and the controversies over whether representationalism can offer an adequate and exhaustive account of the phenomenal character of conscious perceptual experience. Despite the book’s many merits, one might object that it is almost exclusively focused on naïve realist versions of disjunctivism and that a more thorough treatment of other varieties would have provided the inexperienced reader with a fuller picture. There is also a lack of direct engagement with relevant empirical research to assess whether disjunctivism is consistent with it, as opposed to a discussion of Tyler Burge’s objections based on the scientific study of perception, which are the sole target of Soteriou’s examination in the book. Simone Marini Trinity College Dublin, Ireland simmarini@gmail.com