Direct realism Flashcards
what is direct realism?
the theory that we perceive objects in a direct, unmediated way and that these objects exist in an external, real, mind-independent world
what are the pros of direct realism?
It allows things to exist as a constant even when we don’t perceive them, which is the most plausible hypothesis - it fits the evidence we see pretty well.
Is a good hypothesis - has scope, plausibility, coherence, accuracy.
Ockham’s Razor - SIMPLE!
what are the cons of direct realism?
ILLUSIONS show our senses are fallible and don’t always perceive things directly.
HALLUCINATIONS show that we perceive mind-dependent objects, so our senses are fallible.
TIMELAG - light takes time to travel, so we see the world as it WAS not as it IS. This means our perception is mediated.
PERCEPTUAL VARIATION - Russel argues that our perception is constantly varying even when the object doesn’t vary, so we cannot be perceiving things directly.
How can direct realism be defended against the argument from illusions?
When we see a pencil in water as bent, we aren’t seeing a pencil, but a pencil in water. It’s still direct perception bc we are directly perceiving the refraction of light through water, not the pencil itself.
PROBLEM: this doesn’t work for all illusions.
How can direct realism be defended against the argument from hallucinations?
hallucinations aren’t of real things, but imaginary. The thing we perceive lacks content. So it isn’t a problem for DR as no perception is being mediated/interfered with.
PROBLEM: many hallucinations are indistinguishable from reality, so whats the difference? Maybe everything is a hallucination.
How can direct realism be defended against the argument from timelag?
Direct doesn’t mean ‘instant’. Our perception is still direct and unmediated, there is just a slight delay.
PROBLEM: the technically past doesn’t exist mind-independently, and we see the past only, so all the objects we see are mind-dependent.
How can direct realism be defended against the perceptual variation argument?
There are two types of properties: physical (e.g. 6’1”) and relational (e.g. tall). We still directly perceive the physical qualities although it is in a relational way so will appear different to different people. So, perceptual variation and direct realism can coexist.
Essay on direct Realism
simple, fits ockham’s razor, but unconvincing
illusions
pencil in water example
but we are directly perceiving the light bent off a pencil in water, not indirectly perceiving the pencil in water
but this doesn’t work for other optical illusions
One of the most significant disprovings of DR as it provides a counter example it cannot explain at all
hallucinations
e.g. schizophrenia
but this is insignificant anomaly that doesn’t interfere with DR as DR deals with the REAL objects of our perception and not the hallucinations which is a separate thing that doesn’t even count as perception
BUT hallucinations aren’t distinguisable from reality, so what if all perception is a hallucination? we can’t write off hallucinations as irrelevant to perception when we can’t distinguish halls from perc.
Proves that DR isn’t 100% indubitably correct, but it doesn’t 100% DISprove it like illusions do, so less strong
perceptual variation
relational vs physical properties. Relational = properties that something has depending on a relationship between the perceiver and the perceived.
but: this shows that our perception of an object is MEDIATED by our relationship to it. So perception is mediated by things like our position, our sight, etc.
Possibly the most convincing argument against DR as it is universal and ubiquitous, unlike ills and halls which are counter-examples that do not occur all the time.
