direct realism Flashcards
direct realism
The immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties
what you see is what you get
25 marker points
we immediately perceive physical objects
physical objects are mind-independent
our senses detect properties of these objects which exist in the world
and objects retain these properties when unperceived
explanation
when you look at and perceive a tree you are directly perceiving a tree that exists out there in the world.
you are perceiving its properties as well ie size shape smell etc
the immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties
When asked what you see, you describe the external object itself, not your perception of it.
ie that is a person that is friend shaped
perceptual experience presents itself to us as mind-independent objects
support for direct realism
alines with our common sense
avoids scepticism- gives us a clear account of how we come to have knowledge of the world
has explanatory powers- how we know what we know ie finding food
explains why i perceive what i do- no control over what i see because objects are mind independent
we agree with what we perceive and is in tune with out senses that we live in the same universe as others.
problems-
argument from perceptual variation
table example- two people see a table
one sees a white spot on the table (light reflection)
the other does not
But the white spot is either there or it isn’t – it can’t be both! So, at least one of us is not perceiving the table directly as it is.
another example table shape- bird shot the table looks rectangular
from a few metres away it looks kite shaped
it cant be both shapes at once
these examples highlight the difference in our perception of the table yet according to direct realism there should be no differences between perception and reality.
problem- perceptual variation
in standard form- russels table example
p1- direct realism claims that immediate objects of perception are material objects and their properties
p2- but when we percieve physcial objects the appearance of their properties can vary
p3- the properties of the objects themselves dont vary.
conc- so direct realism is false: the apparent properties are not the same as the real properties of physcial objects
problem- perceptual variation
standard form- berkeley
water temperture
p1- direct realism claims materials objects possess mind-independent properties ie hot and cold which we directly perceive
p2- but material objects are perceived to have incomparable properties ie hot and cold at the same time
p3- they cant possess incompatible properties ie hot and cold at the same time
conc- therefore direct realism is false: material objects do not possess such properties
response- we perceive objects as they are
attacks on assumption that direct realism- that we perceive the properties of objects as they really are.
direct realists can give up this assumption without giving up direct realism
they can accept that objects may appear differently to perceivers yet still insist that they are directly perceived
ie the lukewarm water may appear to be cold to the perceiver that doesn’t mean that it isn’t lukewarm or that it isn’t directly perceived
we can explain these examples-
table- the light reflects off the surface differently at different angles
water- temperature of hands relative to the water
no need to posit the existence of a third thing (appearance) mediating between the object and the perceiver.
response- relational properties
A relational property is one that varies in relation to something else.
being to the left or right of something is a real property that something can have but it varies relative to other objects
ie the cupboard to the left of the fridge
Similarly, we could say that appearing kite-shaped is a real property a table can have relative to certain perceivers.
In other words: The object itself does not change, but the perceiver does – and thus the relational properties of the object change.
problem- argument from illusion
pencil in water
our senses are subjected to illusions from time to time
our senses distort the true nature of physical reality in some way meaning we seem to perceive is not the same as what is actually there in the world
eg. when looking at a pencil in water, the pencil looks broken yet when out of the water it is connected.
we are directly aware of the bent looking pencil and cant doubt that this is the way it appears to us
at the same time, we are pretty confident that the pencil is not how it appears yet our senses tell us otherwise.
in cases like this, the world doesn’t appear to us like how it actually is therefore we must conclude that immediate objects of perception cant be material objects. we are forced to distinguish appearances from reality.
problem- illusion
in standard form
p1 when subject to an illusion n object appears to aa perceived to have a particular property ie the pencil appears to be bent
p2 the perceiver is directly aware of this apparent property ie the bent looking pencil
p3 but the object doesn’t have this property in reality ie the pencil is not bent
conc1 so what the perceiver is directly aware of the bent pencil and what is rea the straight pencil are distinct
conc2 so direct realism is false we do not percieve physcual ojects directly
response- illusion
when I am subjected to an illusion it is not the case that i am directly aware of anything distinct from the physical object.
There is no thing- the appearance of the pencil- of which I am immediately aware and which should contrast with the real pencil.
as well as I am aware of the circumstances of the pencil being bent
the light travelling through two different mediums
there is nothing mediating between the pencil and my perception, it’s the appearance.
so direct realists don’t have to suppose that objects have to appear exactly as they are, we can accept that they can appear differently because of the way they relate to the perceiver.
indirect realism makes the mistake of reifying appearances by positing the existence of entities called appearance or sense data which are directly observed.
problem from hallucination
Macbeth dagger
hallucinations occur when a person perceives something which isn’t actually there.
often a person cant distinguish between a hallucination and truthful and accurate (veridical) perception.
however, if a hallucination and veridical perceptions are subjectively indistinguishable then the person must be aware of the same thing in both cases.
problem from hallucination
in standard form
p1 hallucinations occur when a person perceives something which doesn’t exist outside of the mind
conc1 so what they perceive the hallucination exists only in their mind
p2 hallucinations can be subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perceptions
p3 but if hallucinations and veridical perception are subject indistinguishable then the person must be aware of the same thing in both cases
conc2 so from c1 p2 p2 what they are directly aware of during veridical perception must also be in the mind.
conc3 hence we perceive the world indirectly and direct relaims is false
response- hallucination
the fact that hallucinations can be subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception doesn’t show that they are the same phenomenon, in reality,
the direct realist may argue that hallucinations in fact have a very different causal history from veridical perceptions. rather than being caused by a physical object impacting the sense organs hallucination is produced by some sort of malfunction in the brain.
since hallucinations and veridical perceptions are not identical phenomena even if they are indistinguishable t the person subject to them it does not follow from the fact that hallucinations occur in the mind that veridical perception involves a purely mental element
Not all objects come from the mind one could be from the external world ie a real object and the other from the mind is a hallucination
