Refuting Objections to Direct Realism

Refuting Objections to Direct Realism

Introduction

Realism is the form of perception in which it is believed that there is an external world outside of our own minds. It is the belief that regardless of what we may belief is true of false, the external world is independent of these beliefs. There are two forms of realism which are direct and indirect. In this essay I will argue that direct realism is a more plausible theory of perception than indirect realism by refuting the main arguments against direct realism. I will begin by briefly describing direct and indirect realism and follow with countering two of the main arguments indirect realists use against direct realists.

Direct Realism vs. Indirect Realism

Direct Realism is the belief that perception is an immediate and direct understanding of objects that are existent in the external world, independent of the mind. The objects in this external world have qualities such as shape, size, texture, colour taste and smell which exist and continue to obtain their properties regardless of whether they are being perceived or not. Direct realists hold that through our senses we have the ability to obtain knowledge about the object itself and what is being perceived is the exact object that exists in this external, mind-independent world. Indirect realist do not believe in the direct perception of objects in the external, mind-independent world, but rather in the indirect perception through, what is called, sense-data. Sense-data is the supposed mind-dependent objects through which we are able to perceive the external world. When perceiving an object, indirect realists claim that what we see is not the object itself but a representation of the object and this representation that is seen ...

... middle of paper ...

... hallucinations are not sense-data. Therefore the argument form hallucination is invalid.

Conclusion

Throughout this paper I have explained the differences between direct and indirect realism and refuted two of the main arguments indirect realists hold for direct realism. I can therefore conclude that direct realism is a more plausible theory of perception than indirect realism.

Bibliography

• Chisholm, Roderick M. “Perceiving: A Philosophical Study.” Cornell: Cornell University Press, 1957

• Huemer, Michael. “Skepticism and the Veil of Perception.” Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2001

• Le Morvan, Pierre. ”Arguments Against Direct Realism and How to Counter Them.” American Philosophical Quarterly, 41, no.2, 2004, pp.221-234

• Thompson, Brad J. “Representationalism and the Argument From Hallucination” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 89, no.3, 2008, pp. 384-412