Direct Realism

Question 1

Define perception

Answer 1

What we are directly aware of

Question 2

Define direct realism

Answer 2

Direct realism is the view that all objects of perception are mind-dependent and their properties

Question 3

Explain direct realism

Answer 3

1. Physical objects composed of matter are mind independent
2. Therefore they have independent existence in space
3. They follow the laws of physics and possess certain properties
4. These properties range from primary qualities (size and shape) to secondary qualities(colour and texture)
5. We are able to perceive these objects in conjunction with their properties when in the presence of the objects under appropriate conditions

Question 4

What are primary and secondary qualities

Answer 4

• The immediate objects of perception
• They exist independently of our minds
• They exist objectively in space and time
• E.g when I perceive a desk, I perceive its size, shape and colour

Question 5

What is the argument from illusion (objection)

Answer 5

• This argument describes how we cannot trust our sense experience
• This is due to illusions which are distortions of sense experience
• It is extremely difficult to distinguish between illusion and veridical (true) perception
• Therefore we should question whether we can use direct realism to explain how perception works

Question 6

Outline the argument from illusion(objection)

Answer 6

1.Illusions are distortions of sense experiences
2.Therefore what we experience is different to what actually exists
3.Therefore it is difficult to distinguish from the appearance of objects to it’s true reality
4. If we half-submerge a stick in water, it immediately appears crooked
5. However the stick in reality is not crooked
6, Therefore Illusions are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception
7. Therefore in illusions, we see sense data immediately instead .of physical objects
8. Therefore we see sense data in both illusions and veridical perception
9. Therefore direct realism is false

Question 7

Objection to the illusion argument

Answer 7

• Our senses are accurately revealing the world to us
• However we can misinterpret what we perceive
• Normally we are not fooled by the way water refracts light differently from air
• If we are fooled, it is due to misinterpreting the information given to us
• For example if we perceive a stick in water we are perceiving something that is bent
• However in reality the stick is not bent
• The stick has the property of appearing bent in different contexts
• This property is relational as it only appears in relation to me seeing the stick in the water
• Therefore we don’t need to put forward a separate mental object-sense data-which is bent
• We can still see the physical object directly

Question 8

Outline the argument from perceptual variation(objection)

Answer 8

1. There are variations in perception.
2. Our perception varies without changes in the physical object we perceive.
3. For instance a desk remains rectangular, even as the way it looks to me changes as I look at it from different angles
4. Therefore the properties physical objects have and the properties they appear to have are not the same
5. Therefore, what we are immediately aware of in perception is not exactly the same as what exists independently of our minds
6. Therefore we do not perceive physical objects directly.
7. Therefore direct realism is false

Question 9

Outline the analogy of Berkeley’s clouds for perceptual variation

Answer 9

1. Berkeley discusses the idea of the appearance of distant clouds to support the argument from perceptual variation
2. If I see a cloud from the distance it may appear red
3. However the cloud may have a different colour from another perspective
4. Therefore it is absurd to suppose that they have any real colour that is mind-independent
5. Therefore colour is a subjective appearance and it is not something which is objectively real

Question 10

Outline the analogy of Russell’s table for perceptual variation

Answer 10

1. Russell’s table uses similar logic to Berkeley’s cloud analogy
2. The way light reflects on a table’s surface causes it to have different appearances
3. The table may appear as a different colour from different perspectives
4. For example the table may appear brown to me, but white to someone else depending on lighting
5. Therefore it is absurd to say that they have any real mind-independent colour
6. Therefore colour is a subjective appearance only

Question 11

Objection to perceptual variation 1

Answer 11

1. One objection is that real colour is the colour seen most commonly and consistently
2. Strawson argues that there is variation in the way objects look
3. A purple looking piece of cloth may be green
4. However it must be held up to the light to establish this
5. Therefore how we see things depends on context
6. We can establish which context is most consistent
7. The more consistent colour would be the most useful for us(for example in broad daylight)
8. Therefore we do not need sense data as we can perceive the physical object directly

Question 12

Outline the analogy of Locke’s lukewarm water for perceptual variation

Answer 12

1. Locke discusses how our perception changes when putting a hot and cold hand into the same bucket of lukewarm water
2. The water will feel cold to one hand and hot to the other
3. However the same area of water cannot be both hot and cold at the same time
4. Therefore it must appear to be hot and cold
5. Therefore temperature is not a real property of physical objects, but an appearance

Question 13

Define sense data

Answer 13

Immediate objects of perception that we are directly aware of which are distinct from the physical object that causes them

Question 14

Importance of sense data

Answer 14

We can infer the existence of the table as we are aware of sense data. Therefore the table is only perceived indirectly

Question 15

Why is sense data argued to be certain

Answer 15

They are subjective impressions on the mind

Question 16

Objection to perceptual variation 2

Answer 16

1. We can explain how objects appear differently from different angles
2. This may be due to lighting conditions for example
3. The science of optics explains why the table appears differently when viewed from different perspectives
4. Even from different perspectives we still know it to be rectangular
5. We can concede that direct realism does not perceive the world precisely as it is
6. However we can deny that this implies we don’t perceive it directly
7. The conditions may alter our perception
8. However this does not mean it isn’t the objects we are still directly perceiving

Question 17

Outline the argument from hallucination

Answer 17

Due to hallucinations we can have experiences that are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception:

1.In a hallucination, we perceive something having some property F
2.When we perceive something having some property F then there is something that has this property
3.We are not perceiving a physical object at all unlike the case of illusion
4 Therefore, what we perceive must be mental –
sense-data.
5. Hallucinations can be experiences that are ‘subjectively indistinguishable’ from veridical perceptions.
6.This means we cannot tell between genuine perceptions and hallucinations
7.Therefore, we see sense-data, in both hallucinations and veridical perception.
8.Therefore we see sense-data immediately instead of physical objects
9.Therefore direct realism is false.

Question 18

Objection to the hallucination argument

Answer 18

1. Macbeth knows that the dagger is not precisely real
2. This is because he cannot grasp it with his hands
3. Therefore another sense helps him detect the deception
4. If we could not detect hallucinations then we would remain unaware that we were ever subject to them
5. Therefore we could question whether we are hallucinating even now

Question 19

Outline the time lag argument

Answer 19

1. We know that it takes time for us to perceive physical objects
2. Therefore we do not see them directly
3. For example, I know that light takes 8 minutes to reach the earth from the sun
4. Therefore when I look at the sun, I am perceiving it as it was 8 minutes ago
5. Therefore I am not perceiving the sun directly
6. Instead I am perceiving something that is non-physical
7. I am perceiving sense data
8. Therefore I am aware of sense data even in veridical perception

Question 20

Objection to the time lag argument

Answer 20

1. Direct realism can accept that there are time lags in perception
2. Direct realism however can deny any implication that we do not perceive physical objects or that we need to introduce sense data
3. Instead we can argue that we see objects directly as they were
4. For example astronomers say “we can see the Solar Star as it were 6000 years ago”
5. Direct realism may have to give up the view that we perceive objects instantly
6. Direct realists may also have to concede that we are aware of objects of how they were
7. However this does not refute direct realism

Question 21

Outline the causal argument by Locke

Answer 21

1. Locke uses the argument of causation
2. Causation is something not capable of being perceived by our natural senses
3. The particles which convey information from around the world are not perceptible themselves
4. However they produce in us a perception or idea which represents the external world
5. We cannot perceive causation however we have the idea of it in our minds
6. Therefore what we are immediately aware of is an appearance of the world within our minds
7. We are not immediately aware of the external world itself
8. Therefore we perceive the world indirectly
9. Therefore direct realism is false

Question 22

Objection to the causal argument

Answer 22

1. Direct realists can accept that I am aware of objects around me via a causal process
2. However they can deny the inference of sense data
3. Locke is mistaken to think that the process leading to perception must involve sense data in the brain
4. If Locke’s idea was correct we would be aware of sense data as distinct from the objects themselves
5. It would be impossible to disentangle the two
6. However I am unaware of the appearance of an inference to objects
7. I am only aware of the objects themselves
8. Therefore indirect realism is false