‘How Convincing Is Direct Realism?’ Flashcards
(11 cards)
INTRODUCTION - (✗ Not convincing)
Direct Realism (DR) claims that we perceive physical objects directly as they truly are, without any mental intermediary.
- it maintains that perception is of mind-independent objects and that these objects possess the properties we perceive them to have.
However, this theory struggles with perceptual error, such as illusions, hallucinations, and time lag.
- these issues cast doubt on the reliability of our senses and suggest that Indirect Realism (IR) is a better alternative.
Thesis —> Direct Realism is unconvincing because it fails to adequately address key challenges to its core claim.
PARAGRAPH TWO -
(✗ Perceptual Variation – a major challenge)
Perceptual variation shows that the same object can appear differently depending on the observer’s perspective, lighting, or conditions.
Example —> A circular coin appears elliptical from an angle.
- if DR were true, the object would appear the same regardless of conditions – yet our perception varies.
So DR cannot explain why we see things differently without admitting that our perception is sometimes inaccurate.
PARAGRAPH TWO -
(✓ Response – one true perspective)
DR defenders argue that there is a correct or optimal perspective under which the object’s true properties are revealed.
- for instance, in proper lighting and orientation, the coin is clearly circular.
Variations in perception are due to non-ideal conditions, not the failure of direct realism itself.
- this maintains the claim that we do, at least sometimes, perceive objects directly and accurately.
PARAGRAPH THREE -
(✗ Evaluation – no clear objective standard for ‘true’ perception)
The problem: How do we know which perspective is the “correct” one?
- this response presupposes that there is some objective standard, but DR doesn’t provide a way to identify it.
- it therefore fails to explain why one perception is more accurate than another – and this weakens the claim that DR can account for perceptual reliability.
PARAGRAPH FOUR -
(✗ Hallucinations and illusions – another major challenge)
In cases of hallucination, we perceive things that don’t exist in the external world (e.g. pink elephant in the room).
- in illusions, we misperceive what is really there (e.g. mirage in the desert).
- since these perceptions are subjectively indistinguishable from normal perception, DR cannot explain how we can directly perceive reality in all cases.
PARAGRAPH FIVE - (✓ Response – we can usually tell illusions apart from veridical perception)
DR defenders claim that people can usually distinguish between hallucinations and genuine perceptions.
- illusions and hallucinations are often recognised as atypical or temporary, and are explained by background knowledge or further sensory input.
Thus, DR is still plausible because we can correct our perceptions when they are mistaken.
PARAGRAPH SIX - (✗ Evaluation – still undermines trust in senses)
However, if our senses can fail, then we cannot trust that any given perception is veridical.
- this undermines the core of DR, which says we perceive the world as it truly is.
- it opens the door to scepticism – if hallucinations feel real, how can we be sure any perception is genuine?
PARAGRAPH SEVEN - (✗ Time lag argument – further undermines DR)
Because of the speed of light, there is always a delay between when something happens and when we perceive it.
- e.g. seeing a star 1 billion light years away = seeing it as it was, not as it is now.
So we are not perceiving the world as it currently is, but rather an outdated representation.
- this contradicts DR’s central claim that we perceive the world directly and immediately.
PARAGRAPH EIGHT - (✓ Response – scientific explanation clarifies the time lag)
- DR can respond that we understand the time lag through science.
We know that stars are far away, so we accept that we are seeing an historical image. - this doesn’t necessarily mean we’re not seeing the star directly – we just see it as it was, and this is still a kind of direct perception.
PARAGRAPH NINE -
(✗ Evaluation – still implies indirect awareness)
Even with the scientific understanding, this means we are not directly perceiving present reality.
- what we see is mediated by time and light, which implies a kind of indirect access.
- thus, Indirect Realism provides a more coherent explanation, acknowledging that all perception is filtered through mental processes and delay.
CONCLUSION -
(✗ Direct Realism not convincing)
DR fails to solve major philosophical problems:
- perceptual variation, hallucinations, and time lag.
Its responses are weak or incomplete, and don’t offer clear solutions to the sceptical concerns raised.
- in contrast, Indirect Realism handles these problems more successfully by allowing for sense data as intermediaries.
- therefore, DR is not a convincing account of perception, and Indirect Realism is a more robust and realistic alternative.
