What is Direct Realism?
All objects in our perception are mind-independent objects (exist outside of ourselves).
The external world is:
1. forced upon you
2. continuos
3. If we believe otherwise, rayan will walk into the wall forever :)
4. intentionality ( refers to something outside of itself)
What are the problems with Direct Realism?
And responses?
- Time lag:
the speed of light takes bare time for it to reach us. We see stars that may not exist anymore
Response:
We perceive things as they are, but not in real time. All that matters is that we are getting a direct experience of the object. Time isn’t important.
- Perceptual Variation:
Book looks like a rectangle, cuboid, kite etc.
our perceptions change while the object doesn’t, so direct realism is FALSE.
Response:
No absolute view from anywhere - depends on which point in space you are at.
How something looks is a RELATIONAL PROPERTY. After factoring in position, every1 is getting a what you expect them to see if there was an external object. Direct Realism still stands.
- Illusions:
Pencil in water gets distorted
Pencil isn’t distorted, Direct Realism is false
Response: half the stick is seen through air particles, and the rest in water. Once we understand the laws of refraction, then we can understand our true perception. Factoring in the means of light travel, you still are getting a direct experience
- Hallucinations:
- distorted reality
- Direct Realism is false
NO COMEBACK :(
What is Indirect Realism?
We do not have direct perception of external objects, as we have distortions of reality.
We derive perceptions from sense data.
We process this data to create a mental image.
Locke proposes that all objects have primary and secondary qualities:
Primary: innate and objective to the object
e.g. size, shape, mass, motion, number
Secondary: dependent on the nature of the perceiver - concoctions of our minds
e.g. taste, smell, feel
In illusions, our minds have created secondary qualities.
This allows the case for hallucinations, as they are just the sense data going into overdrive i.e. sense data generated without an external object.
What are the problems with indirect realism+ responses?
Berkley
- external mind-independent objects have fixed properties, yet sense data is fluid?
- there are primary qualities - stable and innate, and sense data derived from them are fluid and changeable. Given this contrast, how do we know that sense data resembles the external world at all??? - How would we know if there is any resemblance or not?
- we can only be sure when we see the external world, but we cannot see it - we only see sense data derived from it. - How do we know that anything is being represented at all i.e is there an external world?
- All we see are mental images derived from sense data, but we don’t know if there is anything in the first place.
- Veil of Perception: if we experience mental images from the real world and from our concoctions, is there really an external world?
Responses from Locke:
- Forced nature of perception:
- when imagining a fire, you have to keep on creating the properties i.e. shape, colour, texture, heat etc. When looking at a real fire, you don’t have to intentionally create anything, its effortless, unavoidable and constant. - Coherence of the senses:
- if you doubt there is a fire, you can always put your hand in it. The burn will confirm it for you. Multiple senses make it more believable.
Another response from Russel:
Ruseel’s Cat:
- cat sitting on mat
- when you are reading a book, it moves to the table
Do you think it that the mind-independent cat moved to the table, or that you imagined the first cat, forgot about it, and imagined it again on the table?
Russel says that there is no way to tell, but believing in mind-independent properties are more likely e.g. rayan walking into the wall.
Furthermore, our experience of reality supports this belief.
What is Idealism (both arguments + responses) and its attack on indirect realism?
Berkley argues that there is nothing on the other side of the ‘Veil of perception’. If a perceiver’s experience of A and B are the same, then you can rationally assume there is no external world.
MASTER:
TO BE IS TO BE PERCIEVED
P tries to think of a mind independent tree
H says he can’t cause his mind is thinking of a mind independent tree.
You can’t think of a mind dependent tree
Response: Bertrand Russel on Lovers
All this proves is that there are no mind independent thoughts, but Berkeley confuses thoughts and objects
Argument Against Locke
1.
Both primary and secondary properties are in our minds.
2. All properties exist in our minds alone.
3. As all properties exist within our minds, and a substance is the bearer of properties, no substance exists outside of our minds.
4. Thus, all that exists are ideas in the mind.
He attacks indirect realism by proposing that there are no mind-independent properties (primary) and therefore all properties are concoctions of one’s mind (secondary).
- Shape is just mind created and a circle is just a jaggedy line when zoomed into.
- Size is subjective, as a coconut looks small to an elephant, but big to a fly.
- Motion is subjective as well, as a fast object for a human is slow for a fly.
However, Berkley forgot mass and number
What is Berkley’s argument religious arguement?
All we have are ideas.
Our minds didn’t create them.
The idea didn’t cause itself.
Most likely, another mind created the idea.
Given the complexity of our minds, it would take a near infinite intelligence to keep it going, and that mind is God’s
(we are all ideas in the mind of God)
What are the counters to Berkley’s argument about God? and Berkley’s responses
- God is perfect, and my thoughts are imperfect. While God is pure love, I experience pain and suffering. If my thoughts are nothing but ideas in the mind of God, then His mind will also create imperfect thoughts, thus God’s perfection or idealism is challenged.
Response:
God understands the pain and pleasure but doesn’t go through it himself. He only does this out of empathy, but it is voluntary. This adds to God’s glory and is a show of His true perfection.
- Solipsism: the external world doesn’t exist, but do other minds exist?
Response: We all exist in the mind of God together. If I can think of a lot of minds, God is infinite and can therefore come up with infinite minds.
- Illusions:
- There is no difference between an idea and what actually exists?
- My idea of a pencil is water is bent, but is the pencil bent?
- It isn’t, so idealism is false
Response: the pencil changes according to what point in time we idealise it. In the air, the straight pencil is as real as a bent pencil, as an idea.
- Hallucinations:
Hallucinations clearly aren’t real, and we don’t feel they exist, unlike other ideas. Thus some ideas are more real than other ideas and idealism is false.
