ASSESS REALISM (perception)
Perception alone cannot prove objects exist, even if objects are the ‘best hypothesis’. Therefore we
are forced into idealism as you cannot guarantee mind-independent objects
Initially seems most intuitive theory of perception, alongside principles of
parsimony and Ockham’s Razor as it only involves two parts: the mind and the
external world. However due to its ultimate failure it cannot successfully prove
that objects exist.
DIRECT REALISM
Weakest
criticism Time lag Semantic confusion: confusing the de nition of ‘direct’ with ‘immediate’. Direct = ‘un-
mediated’. Even if perceptions aren’t immediate, they’re unmediated as no other elements/
Stronger
Hallucination factors are a ecting our perceptions - we see things directly as they are.
Criticism hallucinations ≠ perceptions Wouldn’t be able to guarantee all perceptions
weren’t mind dependent
> regular/consistent hallucinations Nulli es the claim all properties of
Strongest
criticism Perceptual variation Provides explanation for perceptual objects are mind-independent,
perceptual variation is undeniable
variation, primary qualities =
and isn’t cause by abnormalities
Most INDIRECT REALISM objective yet we perceive them
indirectly as their secondary (illness or drugs) like hallucinations
signi cant
issue Veil of perception qualities = subjective are. Therefore DR fails
Initially seems strong inductive evidence, but hallucinations =
More Coherence of experience involuntary, we can’t stop through will. Indistinguishable from
convincing
argument (IE)
Involuntary experience + Best hypothesis perceptions in every faction: perceptions
could all be hallucinations.
Strongest IDEALISM - Primary qualities subject to variation Primary issue: cannot
‘prove’ realism through
response to It gives indubitable examples of perceptual variation of objective qualities, proving
INDR induction. (Not deduction =
their subjectivity. If we don’t perceive objective objects, there is no proof they remain
no guarantee)
in existence when we stop perceiving them - so there is a possibility the BH =
incorrect and something else e.g. God is triggering our ideas of the external world.
FORCED INTO SCEPTICISM due to never directly experiencing objective objects
fi
fi ff fi
Perception alone cannot prove objects exist, even if objects are the ‘best hypothesis’. Therefore we
are forced into idealism as you cannot guarantee mind-independent objects
Initially seems most intuitive theory of perception, alongside principles of
parsimony and Ockham’s Razor as it only involves two parts: the mind and the
external world. However due to its ultimate failure it cannot successfully prove
that objects exist.
DIRECT REALISM
Weakest
criticism Time lag Semantic confusion: confusing the de nition of ‘direct’ with ‘immediate’. Direct = ‘un-
mediated’. Even if perceptions aren’t immediate, they’re unmediated as no other elements/
Stronger
Hallucination factors are a ecting our perceptions - we see things directly as they are.
Criticism hallucinations ≠ perceptions Wouldn’t be able to guarantee all perceptions
weren’t mind dependent
> regular/consistent hallucinations Nulli es the claim all properties of
Strongest
criticism Perceptual variation Provides explanation for perceptual objects are mind-independent,
perceptual variation is undeniable
variation, primary qualities =
and isn’t cause by abnormalities
Most INDIRECT REALISM objective yet we perceive them
indirectly as their secondary (illness or drugs) like hallucinations
signi cant
issue Veil of perception qualities = subjective are. Therefore DR fails
Initially seems strong inductive evidence, but hallucinations =
More Coherence of experience involuntary, we can’t stop through will. Indistinguishable from
convincing
argument (IE)
Involuntary experience + Best hypothesis perceptions in every faction: perceptions
could all be hallucinations.
Strongest IDEALISM - Primary qualities subject to variation Primary issue: cannot
‘prove’ realism through
response to It gives indubitable examples of perceptual variation of objective qualities, proving
INDR induction. (Not deduction =
their subjectivity. If we don’t perceive objective objects, there is no proof they remain
no guarantee)
in existence when we stop perceiving them - so there is a possibility the BH =
incorrect and something else e.g. God is triggering our ideas of the external world.
FORCED INTO SCEPTICISM due to never directly experiencing objective objects
fi
fi ff fi
