Is Direct Realism Convincing?
Plan: Direct Realism is not convincing because of various case scenarios? Whilst it does have a good
response to the Time Lag Argument, it does not provide a convincing response from the argument from
illusion, hallucination and perceptual variation.
RICE 1:
R: Direct Realism is not the case due to the Time Lag Argument. It takes time for the light/sound waves t
get from the physical objects to our sense organs. Therefore when we perceive physical objects we don’t
actually see them directly. Eg It takes approximately 8 minutes for light to reach earth. So when you see
the sun you are seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago so in the current present of you seeing it is not the sun it
is at that present moment therefore is not direct
I: This misinterprets what Direct Realism is stating. It is not what we are seeing but rather how we are
seeing. What we are perceiving when we see the sun is the light waves which took 8 minutes to come and
this light wave is physical and mind-independent. Therefore what we perceive immediately is not the sun
but the light from the sun and so in general what we perceive is the physical medium by which we detect
physical objects (light, sound waves etc)
E: The argument itself is quite weak and is dealt with quite well and so is a very weak objection to against
Direct Realism
RICE 2:
R: Direct Realism is not convincing because of illusions. Illusions can be subjectively indistinguishable
from veridical perception. Eg when we see pencil in water we see the property of crookedness however
we know that the pencil itself does not have that property and therefore the property of crookedness
must’ve come from somewhere else which is mental aka sense data.
I: Relational Properties - properties an object gain in relation to other thing and such properties can
change. So in the case of the crooked looking pencil in water it gained the property of looking crooked in
relation to the water. So we are perceiving crookedness from the pencil and not from something mental
therefore direct realism is the case.
C: Argument for hallucination. In this case we perceive something to have property X but there is so object
to have such property. There is no object to have relational property and it isn’t in relation to anything it is
just simply not there
E: Therefore relational properties is an inadequate explanation for illusions and so the explanation for
illusions in terms of sense data still stands.
I: Disjunctive Theory of Perception. When we see things there are actually two possibilities, veridical
perception or hallucination. Veridical perception is where you directly perceive the mind-independent
object whereas Hallucinations it appears to be true and actually isn’t and is different because it involves a
mind separated from reality. Therefore Hallucinations are non-veridical perceptual experiences that is not
coherently connected with the rest of perceptual experience. So they are two completely different types
of mental states and so hallucinations tells us nothing about perception so is not an objection to direct
realism
C: A very unsatisfactory response, it’s implications are weak in which how can we tell between what is a
hallucination and what is veridical perception. We would treat hallucinations like our veridical perceptions.
Why should we act any differently towards them?
E: Overall, if you try to leave hallucinations out of the question it is still unsatisfactory in which its
implications are weak, it still remains a problem.
Is Direct Realism Convincing? 1
Plan: Direct Realism is not convincing because of various case scenarios? Whilst it does have a good
response to the Time Lag Argument, it does not provide a convincing response from the argument from
illusion, hallucination and perceptual variation.
RICE 1:
R: Direct Realism is not the case due to the Time Lag Argument. It takes time for the light/sound waves t
get from the physical objects to our sense organs. Therefore when we perceive physical objects we don’t
actually see them directly. Eg It takes approximately 8 minutes for light to reach earth. So when you see
the sun you are seeing it as it was 8 minutes ago so in the current present of you seeing it is not the sun it
is at that present moment therefore is not direct
I: This misinterprets what Direct Realism is stating. It is not what we are seeing but rather how we are
seeing. What we are perceiving when we see the sun is the light waves which took 8 minutes to come and
this light wave is physical and mind-independent. Therefore what we perceive immediately is not the sun
but the light from the sun and so in general what we perceive is the physical medium by which we detect
physical objects (light, sound waves etc)
E: The argument itself is quite weak and is dealt with quite well and so is a very weak objection to against
Direct Realism
RICE 2:
R: Direct Realism is not convincing because of illusions. Illusions can be subjectively indistinguishable
from veridical perception. Eg when we see pencil in water we see the property of crookedness however
we know that the pencil itself does not have that property and therefore the property of crookedness
must’ve come from somewhere else which is mental aka sense data.
I: Relational Properties - properties an object gain in relation to other thing and such properties can
change. So in the case of the crooked looking pencil in water it gained the property of looking crooked in
relation to the water. So we are perceiving crookedness from the pencil and not from something mental
therefore direct realism is the case.
C: Argument for hallucination. In this case we perceive something to have property X but there is so object
to have such property. There is no object to have relational property and it isn’t in relation to anything it is
just simply not there
E: Therefore relational properties is an inadequate explanation for illusions and so the explanation for
illusions in terms of sense data still stands.
I: Disjunctive Theory of Perception. When we see things there are actually two possibilities, veridical
perception or hallucination. Veridical perception is where you directly perceive the mind-independent
object whereas Hallucinations it appears to be true and actually isn’t and is different because it involves a
mind separated from reality. Therefore Hallucinations are non-veridical perceptual experiences that is not
coherently connected with the rest of perceptual experience. So they are two completely different types
of mental states and so hallucinations tells us nothing about perception so is not an objection to direct
realism
C: A very unsatisfactory response, it’s implications are weak in which how can we tell between what is a
hallucination and what is veridical perception. We would treat hallucinations like our veridical perceptions.
Why should we act any differently towards them?
E: Overall, if you try to leave hallucinations out of the question it is still unsatisfactory in which its
implications are weak, it still remains a problem.
Is Direct Realism Convincing? 1
