Contact Avi, an A* student, for A-Level Maths, Philosophy & Economics tutoring –
+447881294948 (WhatsApp). 1 FREE session included with this purchase.
“Perception as a source of knowledge” – Topic Notes
Direct Realism
Definition: what we perceive are mind-independent objects and their properties which exist objectively in the
external world, they are the same for all and always exist (regardless of humans). Gives us an awareness of reality.
Intuitively is coherent that what we perceive exists, and the fact that perception gives us a direct awareness
of mind-independent objects
It makes sense that our awareness of the object is a correct account of what it looks like in reality (our
experience of objects reflects their differences)
Our perception is reliable: agrees with rational intuitions
Initially it seems to ward off scepticism because it provides the concept that we have reliable knowledge of
reality
Argument from perceptual variation
If you look at a shiny brown table, it is not completely brown all over, there are some parts of the table
which look white
Of course, the table cannot be two colours (white and brown) at once, so why should we assume that the
table is more brown than white?
The variation in perception argument can be applied to taste, shape, size, texture etc. For example, a table
may look extremely large to a 3-year-old but a normal size to an adult.
This is a problem for direct realism because our perception of the table is changing without the table actually
changing in reality, so what we perceive in our minds is not the same as what exists externally, so we don’t
directly perceive reality
(Weak) Response to issue
For the issue of colour, we will only ever see shades of a brown table so the overall colour of the table can
still be said to be brown.
Argument from Illusion
I see a crooked straw in a glass of water, but the straw is not crooked in the external world, therefore what I
perceive in my mind and what exists in reality are not identical, therefore the straw I see doesn’t exist in the external
world.
Hence what I see is in my mind (mind-dependent).
Response to both issues
The idea of relational properties: which is the way in which two or more things relate to each other
Responding to illusion: relational properties shows that a straw can look crooked, (i.e., the property of
“looking” crooked) which doesn’t mean it is crooked (has the property of being crooked) – so the relational
property of “looking” crooked is linked to a normal straw. So, we have directly perceived the relational
properties (how the pencil looks, not is). There relational properties are related to the subject (individual),
the object (table), and factors which affect perceptual circumstances (e.g., point of view). So, the object we
perceive is mind-independent, but the properties don’t have to be mind-independent. But for relational
properties, they are mind independent properties which exist within the object, just change depending on
the person.
Responding to perceptual variation: same argument, you are perceiving a table which looks white, but it is
brown.
Response to response: This implies that we do not perceive objects as they are (we don’t perceive their
intrinsic properties), rather we only perceive how the object appears to be. Only a nuanced definition of
, Contact Avi, an A* student, for A-Level Maths, Philosophy & Economics tutoring –
+447881294948 (WhatsApp). 1 FREE session included with this purchase.
direct realism fits with this. We are not perceiving properties of mind-independent objects, rather properties
that mind independent objects have (which are sense data and mind-dependent). So direct realism is false.
R to r to r to r: there is a distinction between a property being mind dependent due to being a property of
sense data, and mind dependent due to requiring a mind to exist. Relational properties depend on minds,
but they are properties which have an objective relation to an object, whereas sense data don’t have any
relation to mind-independent objects (they just exist in the mind). There is an objective relation between a
subjective mind and an objective object (e.g., a table only looks rectangular when looked at from a specific
angle). So, a mind independent object can be directly perceived through relational properties, which just
require a mind to exist.
Argument from hallucination
Hallucinations can be subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception (i.e., can’t tell the difference
between hallucinations and real perception) because from direct perception they both seemingly exist
I see a pink elephant, but there is no pink elephant in the external world. So, what I am seeing exists in my
mind, and therefore in all cases of perception what I perceive is in my mind (because veridical perception is
identical to hallucination from internal view)
Hence both are sense-data and so direct realism is false.
Response: disjunctive theory of perception – you don’t perceive anything
Hallucinations are different to veridical perception because they are different mental states - hallucinations are not
connected with the external world (no cognitive contact with the real world).
Hallucinations are disjunctions (lack correspondence) because in a hallucination we don’t perceive anything we just
imagine it: no one else can perceive your hallucination and if you try to perceive a hallucination through other forms
(e.g., touch) it doesn’t exist.
Counter
Intuitively we can argue that we do see hallucinations (logically you would argue for this, you are convinced
there is something that you’re perceiving).
Hallucinations are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception so why should we believe one and
not the other.
Time-lag argument
If you see an object, there is a chance that the object no longer exists in the external world in the present (because
you’re seeing the object in the past). So, the object you see still exists, but it could not actually exist in the external
world. Hence what you directly perceive does not exist in the external world and so direct realism is false.
Response: Eternalism – the idea that you can directly perceive objects in the past or present, so we directly
perceived the object in the past. Also the idea that you directly perceive the light rays instead of the object so you
still directly perceive something.
Counter: This implies that we do not perceive objects as they are as we don’t perceive them in their current state in
the mind-independent world, rather in a different form.
Indirect Realism
+447881294948 (WhatsApp). 1 FREE session included with this purchase.
“Perception as a source of knowledge” – Topic Notes
Direct Realism
Definition: what we perceive are mind-independent objects and their properties which exist objectively in the
external world, they are the same for all and always exist (regardless of humans). Gives us an awareness of reality.
Intuitively is coherent that what we perceive exists, and the fact that perception gives us a direct awareness
of mind-independent objects
It makes sense that our awareness of the object is a correct account of what it looks like in reality (our
experience of objects reflects their differences)
Our perception is reliable: agrees with rational intuitions
Initially it seems to ward off scepticism because it provides the concept that we have reliable knowledge of
reality
Argument from perceptual variation
If you look at a shiny brown table, it is not completely brown all over, there are some parts of the table
which look white
Of course, the table cannot be two colours (white and brown) at once, so why should we assume that the
table is more brown than white?
The variation in perception argument can be applied to taste, shape, size, texture etc. For example, a table
may look extremely large to a 3-year-old but a normal size to an adult.
This is a problem for direct realism because our perception of the table is changing without the table actually
changing in reality, so what we perceive in our minds is not the same as what exists externally, so we don’t
directly perceive reality
(Weak) Response to issue
For the issue of colour, we will only ever see shades of a brown table so the overall colour of the table can
still be said to be brown.
Argument from Illusion
I see a crooked straw in a glass of water, but the straw is not crooked in the external world, therefore what I
perceive in my mind and what exists in reality are not identical, therefore the straw I see doesn’t exist in the external
world.
Hence what I see is in my mind (mind-dependent).
Response to both issues
The idea of relational properties: which is the way in which two or more things relate to each other
Responding to illusion: relational properties shows that a straw can look crooked, (i.e., the property of
“looking” crooked) which doesn’t mean it is crooked (has the property of being crooked) – so the relational
property of “looking” crooked is linked to a normal straw. So, we have directly perceived the relational
properties (how the pencil looks, not is). There relational properties are related to the subject (individual),
the object (table), and factors which affect perceptual circumstances (e.g., point of view). So, the object we
perceive is mind-independent, but the properties don’t have to be mind-independent. But for relational
properties, they are mind independent properties which exist within the object, just change depending on
the person.
Responding to perceptual variation: same argument, you are perceiving a table which looks white, but it is
brown.
Response to response: This implies that we do not perceive objects as they are (we don’t perceive their
intrinsic properties), rather we only perceive how the object appears to be. Only a nuanced definition of
, Contact Avi, an A* student, for A-Level Maths, Philosophy & Economics tutoring –
+447881294948 (WhatsApp). 1 FREE session included with this purchase.
direct realism fits with this. We are not perceiving properties of mind-independent objects, rather properties
that mind independent objects have (which are sense data and mind-dependent). So direct realism is false.
R to r to r to r: there is a distinction between a property being mind dependent due to being a property of
sense data, and mind dependent due to requiring a mind to exist. Relational properties depend on minds,
but they are properties which have an objective relation to an object, whereas sense data don’t have any
relation to mind-independent objects (they just exist in the mind). There is an objective relation between a
subjective mind and an objective object (e.g., a table only looks rectangular when looked at from a specific
angle). So, a mind independent object can be directly perceived through relational properties, which just
require a mind to exist.
Argument from hallucination
Hallucinations can be subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception (i.e., can’t tell the difference
between hallucinations and real perception) because from direct perception they both seemingly exist
I see a pink elephant, but there is no pink elephant in the external world. So, what I am seeing exists in my
mind, and therefore in all cases of perception what I perceive is in my mind (because veridical perception is
identical to hallucination from internal view)
Hence both are sense-data and so direct realism is false.
Response: disjunctive theory of perception – you don’t perceive anything
Hallucinations are different to veridical perception because they are different mental states - hallucinations are not
connected with the external world (no cognitive contact with the real world).
Hallucinations are disjunctions (lack correspondence) because in a hallucination we don’t perceive anything we just
imagine it: no one else can perceive your hallucination and if you try to perceive a hallucination through other forms
(e.g., touch) it doesn’t exist.
Counter
Intuitively we can argue that we do see hallucinations (logically you would argue for this, you are convinced
there is something that you’re perceiving).
Hallucinations are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception so why should we believe one and
not the other.
Time-lag argument
If you see an object, there is a chance that the object no longer exists in the external world in the present (because
you’re seeing the object in the past). So, the object you see still exists, but it could not actually exist in the external
world. Hence what you directly perceive does not exist in the external world and so direct realism is false.
Response: Eternalism – the idea that you can directly perceive objects in the past or present, so we directly
perceived the object in the past. Also the idea that you directly perceive the light rays instead of the object so you
still directly perceive something.
Counter: This implies that we do not perceive objects as they are as we don’t perceive them in their current state in
the mind-independent world, rather in a different form.
Indirect Realism
