Is Indirect Realism Convincing?
Statement of Intent: I will be arguing that Indirect Realism is convincing. This is because the case for
sense data is convincing and shows that Direct Realism is not the case. Secondly, the implications of
indirect realism ie scepticism has been dealt with somewhat convincingly. Lastly, further objections such
as the distinction between Primary and Secondary Qualities are dealt with convincingly.
Plan:
RICE 1:
R: Indirect Realism is convincing because the case of sense data is convincing. This is because there are
many situations such as illusion where we perceive a property which is not in the object and thus the
properties must've come from something mental (eg the crooked pencil) This mental thing is thus sense
data, which are the immediate objects of perceptions and it is via sense data that we perceive mind-
independent object indirectly
I: Direct Realist’s reply - we can explain illusions without sense data via relational properties. In which
properties are gained in relation to other things and so there is a property that exists in the pencil and so
we are still perceiving the pencil directly. Therefore, the notion of sense data is no longer needed and we
don’t see mind-independent objects indirectly
C: Okay but what about Hallucinations? In this case, there is no mind-independent object to bear relational
properties and so what we perceived MUSTVE been something mental and not directly. Even if you claim
that hallucinations and veridical perception is two different forms of perceptions and thus hallucinations is
not a problem for Direct Realism as it is irrelevant, they are subjectively indistinguishable and so this
response is not satisfying what is stopping us from treating hallucinations the same as veridical
perceptions and where do we draw the line?
E: Thus overall, sense data is the case and direct realism is unconvincing as potential saves aren’t
convincing at all.
RICE 2:
R: Indirect Realism is convincing because it’s account of the distinction between primary and secondary
qualities is convincing. A quality is a power to produce an idea in our mind. Primary qualities are those that
are utterly inseparable from the objects and don’t depend on human perception - they are objective. An
object will have these primary qualities in and of itself (extension, shape, motion, number solidity).
Secondary qualities are those that are nothing but powers to produce various sensations to us. They are
subjective and mind-dependent eg colours etc. He uses this distinction to argue for indirect realism
I: Loke confuses the idea of quality with ideas. Qualities are power in an object. Ideas are the effect of
power on our mind. Is the colour an idea (a type of sensation we experience) or is it a quality (the property
of an object to cause this type of sensation). If we are to say that colour is a quality which Locke does
suggest (colour being a secondary quality) then an object does not lose its colour when unperceived as it
is a property of that object
C: However imagine another case scenario, one warm hand and one cold hand in lukewarm water. The
water will feel hot in the cold hand and the water will feel cold in the hot hand. It is impossible for the
water to have the property be both hot and cold at the same time if unperceived. So what makes it hot or
cold is that it is subjective. Perceptual Variation shows that secondary qualities are mind-dependent and
so we must perceive objects indirectly.
E: Therefore, the case for the distinction of primary and secondary qualities remains, and it is clear that
secondary qualities must be mind dependent and so we do perceive mind-independent objects indirectly
Is Indirect Realism Convincing? 1
Statement of Intent: I will be arguing that Indirect Realism is convincing. This is because the case for
sense data is convincing and shows that Direct Realism is not the case. Secondly, the implications of
indirect realism ie scepticism has been dealt with somewhat convincingly. Lastly, further objections such
as the distinction between Primary and Secondary Qualities are dealt with convincingly.
Plan:
RICE 1:
R: Indirect Realism is convincing because the case of sense data is convincing. This is because there are
many situations such as illusion where we perceive a property which is not in the object and thus the
properties must've come from something mental (eg the crooked pencil) This mental thing is thus sense
data, which are the immediate objects of perceptions and it is via sense data that we perceive mind-
independent object indirectly
I: Direct Realist’s reply - we can explain illusions without sense data via relational properties. In which
properties are gained in relation to other things and so there is a property that exists in the pencil and so
we are still perceiving the pencil directly. Therefore, the notion of sense data is no longer needed and we
don’t see mind-independent objects indirectly
C: Okay but what about Hallucinations? In this case, there is no mind-independent object to bear relational
properties and so what we perceived MUSTVE been something mental and not directly. Even if you claim
that hallucinations and veridical perception is two different forms of perceptions and thus hallucinations is
not a problem for Direct Realism as it is irrelevant, they are subjectively indistinguishable and so this
response is not satisfying what is stopping us from treating hallucinations the same as veridical
perceptions and where do we draw the line?
E: Thus overall, sense data is the case and direct realism is unconvincing as potential saves aren’t
convincing at all.
RICE 2:
R: Indirect Realism is convincing because it’s account of the distinction between primary and secondary
qualities is convincing. A quality is a power to produce an idea in our mind. Primary qualities are those that
are utterly inseparable from the objects and don’t depend on human perception - they are objective. An
object will have these primary qualities in and of itself (extension, shape, motion, number solidity).
Secondary qualities are those that are nothing but powers to produce various sensations to us. They are
subjective and mind-dependent eg colours etc. He uses this distinction to argue for indirect realism
I: Loke confuses the idea of quality with ideas. Qualities are power in an object. Ideas are the effect of
power on our mind. Is the colour an idea (a type of sensation we experience) or is it a quality (the property
of an object to cause this type of sensation). If we are to say that colour is a quality which Locke does
suggest (colour being a secondary quality) then an object does not lose its colour when unperceived as it
is a property of that object
C: However imagine another case scenario, one warm hand and one cold hand in lukewarm water. The
water will feel hot in the cold hand and the water will feel cold in the hot hand. It is impossible for the
water to have the property be both hot and cold at the same time if unperceived. So what makes it hot or
cold is that it is subjective. Perceptual Variation shows that secondary qualities are mind-dependent and
so we must perceive objects indirectly.
E: Therefore, the case for the distinction of primary and secondary qualities remains, and it is clear that
secondary qualities must be mind dependent and so we do perceive mind-independent objects indirectly
Is Indirect Realism Convincing? 1
