direct realism Flashcards
what is direct realism?
it is the view that;
- the external world exists independently of the mind
- we perceive the external world directly
you are also perceiving an objects properties
the objects are mind-independent
what are the criticisms of direct realism?
- perceptual variation
- argument from illusion
- argument from hallucination
- time lag
what is the argument from perceptual variation?
differences in perceptual variation provide a problem for direct realism
- when i stand on one side of the room, a shiny wooden table may appear to have a white spot where the light is shining on it but to someone else there may be no white spot.
it cannot be both there and not - so we are NOT perceiving the table directly as it is
what is the ppc for argument from perceptual variation?
p1) direct realism says what we perceive are objects and their properties
p2) but in at least one instance, we perceive a property that the object does not have
p3) so in at least one instance, what we are perceiving is not the object or its properties
c) therefore, direct realism is false
what is a response to the argument from perceptual variation?
direct realism can respond by refining the theory and introduing the idea of relational properties
- applying this we could say that the table has the relational property appearing kite-shaped relative to certain perceivers whist having the relational property of appearing square shaped to OTHERS
the object does not change but the perceiver does
what are relational properties?
one that varies in relation to something else
- being to the north or south of something are real and mind-independent properties that something can have but they VARY relative to other objects.
what is the argument from illusion?
how can reality be different to our perception of it?
- when a pencil is placed in a glass of water, it can look crooked, but it is not crooked
if direct realism is true, the external world would be exactly as we perceive it, but in the case of illusions that is not the case
what are the ppcs for the argument from illusion?
p1) we perceive something having some property F
p2) when we perceive something as having some property F then there is something that is F
p3) in an illusion, the physical object does not have the property F
C1) therefore, in illusions what has the property F is something mental, a sense datum
c2) therefore, in illusions we see sense data and not physical objects
p4) illusions can be subjectively indistinugiushable from veridical perception
c3) therefore, we see the same thing, namely sense data in both illusions and veridical perception
c4) therefore, in all cases, we see sense data and not physical objects
c5) therefore, direct realism is false
what is a response to argument from illusion?
when the oar in the water looks crooked, there is nothing that IS crooked - so P2 is wrong
- that is a relational property of looking crooked rather than being crooked
in illusions, we perceive the looks of properties of physical objects and these looks properties don’t match the IS properties of the object
what is the argument from hallucination?
direct realism can explain the difference between how things are and how they appear to us
- hallucinations can be subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception
we cant say that what is seen is how some physical object looks because no physical object is seen at all
what is the ppc for the argument from hallucination?
p1) in a hallucination, we perceive something having some property F
p2) when we perceive something as having some property F, then there is something that is F
p3) in a hallucination, we don;t perceive a physical object at all
c1) therefore, what we perceive msut be mental - sense data
p4) hallucinations can be experiences that are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perceptions
c2) therefore, we see the same thing, namely sese data in both hallucinations and veridical perceptions
c3) therefore, in all cases, we see sense data, in both hallucinations and veridical perception
c4) therefore, direct realism is false
what is the response to the argument from the hallucinations?
if something looks a certain way, then one of two quite different things is happening:
1) i directly perceive a mind-independent physical object F
2) it appears to me just as if there is something that is F, but there is nothing that is F
- this is the disjunctive theory of perception and it says that hallucinations and veridical perceptions are different types of mental state.
- the fact that hallucinations are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception tells us nothing significant about what perception is.
what is the time-lag argument?
it takes time for light waves or sound waves to get from physical objects to our sense organs so you are not seeing it directly.
- we see the sun indirectly because we see light waves directly.
what is a direct realists reply to the time lag argument?
they reply that this is a confusion between HOW we perceive and WHAT we perceive
e.g. 1) can you see the lake and can you see the light reflecting off the lake VS 2) can you see the paper and can you see the light reflecting off the paper
we can talk literally about seeing the light in 1 but in 2 there is no difference in what one is supposed to see.
we don’t see the light waves directly and physical objects indirectly but light waves are part of HOW we see the physical objects
