Shirley Jackson Object

1283 Words3 Pages

Prompt #3 Jackson defines objects that are seen immediately to be those that are viewed not mediately in order to distinguish the different ways of seeing an object. To tackle the issue of how we see an object, he uses the idea of in virtue of to show that many objects are seen in virtue of seeing its surface. We are able to see the aircraft in virtue of seeing its underside when the surface that is facing us is the underside of the aircraft. To state that seeing the aircraft in virtue of its underside as the only way of seeing involves the dismissal that we never really see the aircraft immediately. I will explain that the in virtue of process is not the only way we see the aircraft through Clarke’s second step argument where he states …show more content…

Suppose person P sees the aircraft by viewing the underside of the aircraft. Now suppose everything except the underside surface of the aircraft was removed. Nothing has changed with person P except that the object that P was seeing is now not the same as it was before. However, the observational properties that person P has of the object are the same visually. Person P is unable to recognize the difference in the aircraft and the surface of the aircraft. This shows that we see objects mediately through seeing their surface immediately. This seems to be true, but when knowing that we see an object in virtue of seeing their surface still leaves us in the same position that STm is in. Our perceptual view is still worse than when we directly see an object and shows that most, if not all, objects are viewed mediately. If all objects are seen mediately, then that means there are infinite number of objects that we see though there are finite …show more content…

It’s puzzling how our perceptual view seems to be worse based on the fact that our mind has made a note of the situation. Clarke argues that when we make note of seeing the surface of an object, we are changing the situation that we are in. Instead of seeing the object, we are now seeing and focusing on the surface of the object. It seems that Jackson’s idea of in virtue of leaves us at the same place and situation that STm is in except that it goes one step beyond just seeing the surface of the object and concludes that we see the object mediately. Seeing the aircraft in virtue of seeing its underside does not seem to be the only way that the aircraft is seen. I agree with Austin when he states that the question of whether we see objects directly or indirectly cannot be decided on. There seems to be multiple ways that people see an object whether it is through inference, sense-data, surfaces, etc. I believe that to try to define the instances in which objects are seen directly or indirectly cannot be achieved because there are many different kinds of things that we see and one definition cannot cover all the different

Open Document