How convincing is indirect realism (25 Marks) – Dylan Thomaidis
Indirect Realism is that the view that we don’t immediately perceive physical objects and instead
perceive them indirectly via sense data (therefore physical objects are mind-independent). In this essay I
will conclude that indirect realism is very convincing as an idea for how we perceive things because it gets
rid of many of the problems against direct realism such as the arguments from illusion, hallucination and
the time lag argument. I will look at the criticisms of Indirect realism but conclude that the arguments for
it including Russel’s table and Locke’s primary and secondary qualities are much stronger and prove that
the argument of indirect realism is very convincing.
Indirect realism views the external world as mind independent and therefore views everything as real. It
is a theory that specifically counter direct realism which is the view that we view everything directly and
what you see is what you get. However there are many arguments against direct realism which prove this
false such as the argument from illusion which argues that looks can be deceiving and if you were to look
at a pencil in a glass of water, if would look bent and not be an accurate depiction of what the pencil
actually looks like. However direct realists respond to this by saying that you are just looking at the light
refracting the water and pencil, yet you are still seeing it directly. Another argument which provides a
valid criticism against direct realism is the argument from hallucination which says that you can see things
that are in your mind which aren’t really there (e.g. hallucinating water in a desert). This is harder to
contend but DR’s could try to respond by saying the fact that the hallucinations are subjectively
indistinguishable from one another prove they aren’t in reality so they don’t count. Additionally another
strong argument against direct realism is the time lag argument which explains that if you were to look at
the sun, your actually look at the sun 8 minutes ago, again showing how direct perceptions can be
deceiving and your not actually seeing that. Direct realists could try to argue back against this saying that
your are still seeing the sun, but just 8 minutes ago so you are still directly seeing it. But isn’t a completely
strong counter as you might not be even seeing the sun at that point, in those 8 minutes it could have
exploded so you would be seeing the wrong this, proving that direct realism is wrong while indirect
realism provides a valid argument for all of this.
Finally the last argument against direct realism which also helps support indirect realism is the argument
of perceptual variation from Betrand Russell. This argument is the strongest as it has the least valid
counters. Betrand Russell said to imagine there is a table in the middle of a room. If you stand on one side
of the room there would be a white spot on the table because of the way the light refracts on the table
but if you stand on the other side you wouldn’t see it. And really every time you move the table looks
slightly different because of the light. Additionally you could argue you perceive the shape of the table
differently too as if you look at the table from above it will look rectangular but you look at from the side
far away it may have a kite shape. And this is a very strong argument both in favour of IDR and as a
criticism of DR because direct realism has no proper responses to this but indirect realism can easily
answer this by saying everyone’s sense data is different and everyone’s view everything different which is
explained by Locke’s primary and secondary qualities. Locke distinguished between primary qualities
which are qualities, that are inherent to the object and are objective properties of something e.g. shape,
size , motion etc.. Whereas secondary qualities are subjective properties of something for example
colour, taste or sound. So that’s why in relation to the table, everyone’s view of the white spot differs
because it’s the subjective property of the table and so is unique to the viewer. Additionally, another
argument Locke uses for the distinction is that when you have one warm hand and one cold hand and
place it in the same lukewarm water, it will feel both hot and cold even though the water can only be
one. So temperature must be a secondary quality and therefore subjective. So from all this we can
conclude that there are four solid arguments against direct realism, the strongest being Russell’s table
which also supports and strengthens indirect realism as well as disproving direct realism.
However there are many arguments against indirect realism which provide a different perspective and
possibly make this argument less convincing. The biggest problem is that indirect realism leads to
scepticism of the external world. This is because indirect realism says we have sense data, which is mind
dependent, so therefore the only thing we see is in our mind (sense data), so we can’t actually know if the
,external world exists or we are just a brain in a vat for example. This provides a big gap in indirect realism
and is the strongest argument against it as most people(including myself) believe in the external world.
On the other hand, both empiricist Locke and Betrand Russell do have arguments which respond to this
claim of scepticism. Locke responded by saying that our perceptions are involuntary and we aren’t in
control of our sense data so if I open my eyes I will receive certain sense data and this is not something I
have any choice about. So because perception is not subject to my will, Lokes argues it can’t come from
me and therefore should be external. However of course, a sceptic could respond by saying that’s just
what an evil demon would want use to see, so we could still be deceived in some one or be a brain in a
vat for example. Whereas Russell responded with a version of Ockham’s razor. He said that there are two
possible hypotheses for what is happening. Hypothesis A : The external world exists and everything we
see is real or Hypothesis B: the external world is false and nothing is real or as it seems. He says there is a
possibility the external world doesn’t exist but it’s not the most likely outcome so we might as well go by
the simplest most logical explanation and says that it does exist because it makes the most sense. This is
a strong response to the problem of scepticism and makes indirect realism more convincing as an
argument.
Another theory which opposes indirect realism and suggest a completely different alternative is idealism.
This was created by George Berkeley and says that everything we see is mind dependent and everything
exists inside our minds and ideas only. This goes against both indirect realism and direct realism which
are both mind independent. It also specifically opposes Locke’s primary and secondary qualities. Berkeley
says there are just primary qualities which are mind dependent and this is because in idealism everything
is mind dependent. To back his point up he says to imagine you were a something tiny (such as a fly)
compared to something large, you would see an object differently so therefore everyone experiences
primary qualities differently and subjectively and so they are the same (and both are mind
dependent).Additionally if you were tired compared to someone energetic you might perceive the
motion of an object differently. However Locke still argues against this to say that if even if the primary
qualities may seem different for some people, they are still inherent to object themselves and that
doesn’t change and so they still exist and are separate to secondary qualities.
Then Berkeley also created his master argument to object against indirect realism. Berkeley’s master
argument is an attempt to further disprove indirect realism and support idealism instead. His argument is
that if you try to conceive of a tree independently of any mind, in doing so the tree is being conceived by
you and so therefore the three is in your mind and not independent of any mind after all. So, Berkeley’s
master argument is essentially that we cannot even conceive of a mind independent object because as
soon as we conceive of such an object, it becomes mind dependent. Thus, mind-independent objects are
impossible and indirect realism would be wrong. However, the conclusion does not necessarily follow as
just because it’s impossible to have an idea of a mind-independent object, it doesn’t mean that mind-
independent objects are themselves impossible. Additionally, another objection is that if Berkeley’s
argument is valid, it prove too much. It would show that you couldn’t make sense of the idea of anything
existing outside of the mind. This would therefore lead to directly to solipsism(which the idea of idealism
already does) and suggest that the external world doesn’t exist. And Berkeley appeal to God as the
eternal perceiver would be undermined and so the whole system fails. The idea of solipsism definitely
weakens the theory of idealism, making indirect realism therefore stronger here as well.
In conclusion, indirect realism is convincing as a theory of perception as is the most convincing theory
because it has the most strengths such as Berkely’s table and Locke’s primary and secondary qualities.
Another strength is that it finds a good balance between the two extremes of perception, that being
direct realism and idealism. Additionally the other theories of perception are just too weak and have too
many flaws to be considered better or stronger than indirect realism. For example direction realism has
the problems of illusion, hallucination and the time lag argument. And Idealism is directly and
successfully undermined by solipsism.
, Do we have innate knowledge?
In this essay I argue for the case of Leibniz and agree with his views that necessary truths are innate
while I conclude that Plato’s view of innatism isn’t strong at all as his slave boy argument has too
many flaws and his world of forms idea makes no sense. I will also discuss Locke’s opposing view of
innatism (of the tabula rasa) and how it has some strengths, but it is not as convincing as Leibniz’s
arguments and perspectives for innate knowledge. I will conclude that some knowledge is innate,
but only the knowledge that is necessary and true in all worlds (therefore agreeing with Leibniz)
Innate knowledge is knowledge you’re born with and so you don’t need experience (a posteriori) to
know anything. So, in simple terms, innate knowledge is a priori knowledge. Rationalists believe in
this view of innate knowledge while empiricist believe in the opposite. Empiricists believe that
knowledge comes for experience and evidence that our senses give us. For example, if you grew up
in a cave with nothing and never saw the outside world, rationalists would argue that through
reason you could come up with concepts and ideas (such as the idea of a tree), as these ideas would
already be in you innately and so you were just uncovering knowledge you already knew. However,
empiricists would say that in this cave you wouldn’t know anything if you didn’t experience (so you
couldn’t come up with the idea of a tree, without experiencing it first). An example of knowledge
innatism’s says we already know is mathematical truths which Plato uses in the Meno to prove and
further support his point in favour of innatism.
Plato uses geometry in his slave boy argument. In the Meno, Socrates is discussing with a slave boy
who doesn’t know anything and has had no education. During their discussion, Socrates questions
him but doesn’t actually teach the boy about squares. However, at the end, the slave boy is able to
answer the questions about geometry and squares (how they increase in size). So, the boy has an
eternal truth, but Socrates never taught him any answers, so both Socrates and Plato conclude that
the knowledge the slave boy has come from birth and says apart from suggesting the knowledge
came from experience he must have had it all along. So, Plato says that if you know something,
you’re not learning it (through something like experience) but rather you are just remembering it.
Plato himself was puzzled by the relationship between concepts and individual instances. For
example, we seem to have a concept of beauty but never witness it in its pure form, only imperfectly
in different people and objects. So, he asked what beauty itself was. Plato then claimed that in prior
existence we apprehended these perfect concepts (forms) in their pure state, but we forget most of
these forms, however we still know them, but they are in us innately.
However, this argument while very concise is also very confusing and doesn’t make a lot of sense. It
seems Plato just made everything up as he had no real proof for anything he said about the
existence of another world and forms. This argument that he made, isn’t possible to prove so we will
never truly know but we still shouldn’t just believe it because Plato said to. In addition, if we look at
this now, with our knowledge (not with the limited modern knowledge about science Plato had back
then) there is even less reason to believe what he is saying as perhaps if Plato knew what we know,
he wouldn’t come to the same conclusion. Furthermore, while Plato’s idea and theory for the slave
boy is interesting, there are many different possible explanations which make a lot more sense
personally. For example, perhaps the slave boy Is just using reason to work out what must be the
cases considering certain features of lines and shapes. You don’t necessarily need to say that just
because the slave boy can reason his way to geometric truth that his knowledge is inherently innate.
Another possible explanation for him knowing the answers is that Socrates was giving them to him,
just in the form of questions and was teaching him through experience even if he didn’t properly tell
him the answers.
Indirect Realism is that the view that we don’t immediately perceive physical objects and instead
perceive them indirectly via sense data (therefore physical objects are mind-independent). In this essay I
will conclude that indirect realism is very convincing as an idea for how we perceive things because it gets
rid of many of the problems against direct realism such as the arguments from illusion, hallucination and
the time lag argument. I will look at the criticisms of Indirect realism but conclude that the arguments for
it including Russel’s table and Locke’s primary and secondary qualities are much stronger and prove that
the argument of indirect realism is very convincing.
Indirect realism views the external world as mind independent and therefore views everything as real. It
is a theory that specifically counter direct realism which is the view that we view everything directly and
what you see is what you get. However there are many arguments against direct realism which prove this
false such as the argument from illusion which argues that looks can be deceiving and if you were to look
at a pencil in a glass of water, if would look bent and not be an accurate depiction of what the pencil
actually looks like. However direct realists respond to this by saying that you are just looking at the light
refracting the water and pencil, yet you are still seeing it directly. Another argument which provides a
valid criticism against direct realism is the argument from hallucination which says that you can see things
that are in your mind which aren’t really there (e.g. hallucinating water in a desert). This is harder to
contend but DR’s could try to respond by saying the fact that the hallucinations are subjectively
indistinguishable from one another prove they aren’t in reality so they don’t count. Additionally another
strong argument against direct realism is the time lag argument which explains that if you were to look at
the sun, your actually look at the sun 8 minutes ago, again showing how direct perceptions can be
deceiving and your not actually seeing that. Direct realists could try to argue back against this saying that
your are still seeing the sun, but just 8 minutes ago so you are still directly seeing it. But isn’t a completely
strong counter as you might not be even seeing the sun at that point, in those 8 minutes it could have
exploded so you would be seeing the wrong this, proving that direct realism is wrong while indirect
realism provides a valid argument for all of this.
Finally the last argument against direct realism which also helps support indirect realism is the argument
of perceptual variation from Betrand Russell. This argument is the strongest as it has the least valid
counters. Betrand Russell said to imagine there is a table in the middle of a room. If you stand on one side
of the room there would be a white spot on the table because of the way the light refracts on the table
but if you stand on the other side you wouldn’t see it. And really every time you move the table looks
slightly different because of the light. Additionally you could argue you perceive the shape of the table
differently too as if you look at the table from above it will look rectangular but you look at from the side
far away it may have a kite shape. And this is a very strong argument both in favour of IDR and as a
criticism of DR because direct realism has no proper responses to this but indirect realism can easily
answer this by saying everyone’s sense data is different and everyone’s view everything different which is
explained by Locke’s primary and secondary qualities. Locke distinguished between primary qualities
which are qualities, that are inherent to the object and are objective properties of something e.g. shape,
size , motion etc.. Whereas secondary qualities are subjective properties of something for example
colour, taste or sound. So that’s why in relation to the table, everyone’s view of the white spot differs
because it’s the subjective property of the table and so is unique to the viewer. Additionally, another
argument Locke uses for the distinction is that when you have one warm hand and one cold hand and
place it in the same lukewarm water, it will feel both hot and cold even though the water can only be
one. So temperature must be a secondary quality and therefore subjective. So from all this we can
conclude that there are four solid arguments against direct realism, the strongest being Russell’s table
which also supports and strengthens indirect realism as well as disproving direct realism.
However there are many arguments against indirect realism which provide a different perspective and
possibly make this argument less convincing. The biggest problem is that indirect realism leads to
scepticism of the external world. This is because indirect realism says we have sense data, which is mind
dependent, so therefore the only thing we see is in our mind (sense data), so we can’t actually know if the
,external world exists or we are just a brain in a vat for example. This provides a big gap in indirect realism
and is the strongest argument against it as most people(including myself) believe in the external world.
On the other hand, both empiricist Locke and Betrand Russell do have arguments which respond to this
claim of scepticism. Locke responded by saying that our perceptions are involuntary and we aren’t in
control of our sense data so if I open my eyes I will receive certain sense data and this is not something I
have any choice about. So because perception is not subject to my will, Lokes argues it can’t come from
me and therefore should be external. However of course, a sceptic could respond by saying that’s just
what an evil demon would want use to see, so we could still be deceived in some one or be a brain in a
vat for example. Whereas Russell responded with a version of Ockham’s razor. He said that there are two
possible hypotheses for what is happening. Hypothesis A : The external world exists and everything we
see is real or Hypothesis B: the external world is false and nothing is real or as it seems. He says there is a
possibility the external world doesn’t exist but it’s not the most likely outcome so we might as well go by
the simplest most logical explanation and says that it does exist because it makes the most sense. This is
a strong response to the problem of scepticism and makes indirect realism more convincing as an
argument.
Another theory which opposes indirect realism and suggest a completely different alternative is idealism.
This was created by George Berkeley and says that everything we see is mind dependent and everything
exists inside our minds and ideas only. This goes against both indirect realism and direct realism which
are both mind independent. It also specifically opposes Locke’s primary and secondary qualities. Berkeley
says there are just primary qualities which are mind dependent and this is because in idealism everything
is mind dependent. To back his point up he says to imagine you were a something tiny (such as a fly)
compared to something large, you would see an object differently so therefore everyone experiences
primary qualities differently and subjectively and so they are the same (and both are mind
dependent).Additionally if you were tired compared to someone energetic you might perceive the
motion of an object differently. However Locke still argues against this to say that if even if the primary
qualities may seem different for some people, they are still inherent to object themselves and that
doesn’t change and so they still exist and are separate to secondary qualities.
Then Berkeley also created his master argument to object against indirect realism. Berkeley’s master
argument is an attempt to further disprove indirect realism and support idealism instead. His argument is
that if you try to conceive of a tree independently of any mind, in doing so the tree is being conceived by
you and so therefore the three is in your mind and not independent of any mind after all. So, Berkeley’s
master argument is essentially that we cannot even conceive of a mind independent object because as
soon as we conceive of such an object, it becomes mind dependent. Thus, mind-independent objects are
impossible and indirect realism would be wrong. However, the conclusion does not necessarily follow as
just because it’s impossible to have an idea of a mind-independent object, it doesn’t mean that mind-
independent objects are themselves impossible. Additionally, another objection is that if Berkeley’s
argument is valid, it prove too much. It would show that you couldn’t make sense of the idea of anything
existing outside of the mind. This would therefore lead to directly to solipsism(which the idea of idealism
already does) and suggest that the external world doesn’t exist. And Berkeley appeal to God as the
eternal perceiver would be undermined and so the whole system fails. The idea of solipsism definitely
weakens the theory of idealism, making indirect realism therefore stronger here as well.
In conclusion, indirect realism is convincing as a theory of perception as is the most convincing theory
because it has the most strengths such as Berkely’s table and Locke’s primary and secondary qualities.
Another strength is that it finds a good balance between the two extremes of perception, that being
direct realism and idealism. Additionally the other theories of perception are just too weak and have too
many flaws to be considered better or stronger than indirect realism. For example direction realism has
the problems of illusion, hallucination and the time lag argument. And Idealism is directly and
successfully undermined by solipsism.
, Do we have innate knowledge?
In this essay I argue for the case of Leibniz and agree with his views that necessary truths are innate
while I conclude that Plato’s view of innatism isn’t strong at all as his slave boy argument has too
many flaws and his world of forms idea makes no sense. I will also discuss Locke’s opposing view of
innatism (of the tabula rasa) and how it has some strengths, but it is not as convincing as Leibniz’s
arguments and perspectives for innate knowledge. I will conclude that some knowledge is innate,
but only the knowledge that is necessary and true in all worlds (therefore agreeing with Leibniz)
Innate knowledge is knowledge you’re born with and so you don’t need experience (a posteriori) to
know anything. So, in simple terms, innate knowledge is a priori knowledge. Rationalists believe in
this view of innate knowledge while empiricist believe in the opposite. Empiricists believe that
knowledge comes for experience and evidence that our senses give us. For example, if you grew up
in a cave with nothing and never saw the outside world, rationalists would argue that through
reason you could come up with concepts and ideas (such as the idea of a tree), as these ideas would
already be in you innately and so you were just uncovering knowledge you already knew. However,
empiricists would say that in this cave you wouldn’t know anything if you didn’t experience (so you
couldn’t come up with the idea of a tree, without experiencing it first). An example of knowledge
innatism’s says we already know is mathematical truths which Plato uses in the Meno to prove and
further support his point in favour of innatism.
Plato uses geometry in his slave boy argument. In the Meno, Socrates is discussing with a slave boy
who doesn’t know anything and has had no education. During their discussion, Socrates questions
him but doesn’t actually teach the boy about squares. However, at the end, the slave boy is able to
answer the questions about geometry and squares (how they increase in size). So, the boy has an
eternal truth, but Socrates never taught him any answers, so both Socrates and Plato conclude that
the knowledge the slave boy has come from birth and says apart from suggesting the knowledge
came from experience he must have had it all along. So, Plato says that if you know something,
you’re not learning it (through something like experience) but rather you are just remembering it.
Plato himself was puzzled by the relationship between concepts and individual instances. For
example, we seem to have a concept of beauty but never witness it in its pure form, only imperfectly
in different people and objects. So, he asked what beauty itself was. Plato then claimed that in prior
existence we apprehended these perfect concepts (forms) in their pure state, but we forget most of
these forms, however we still know them, but they are in us innately.
However, this argument while very concise is also very confusing and doesn’t make a lot of sense. It
seems Plato just made everything up as he had no real proof for anything he said about the
existence of another world and forms. This argument that he made, isn’t possible to prove so we will
never truly know but we still shouldn’t just believe it because Plato said to. In addition, if we look at
this now, with our knowledge (not with the limited modern knowledge about science Plato had back
then) there is even less reason to believe what he is saying as perhaps if Plato knew what we know,
he wouldn’t come to the same conclusion. Furthermore, while Plato’s idea and theory for the slave
boy is interesting, there are many different possible explanations which make a lot more sense
personally. For example, perhaps the slave boy Is just using reason to work out what must be the
cases considering certain features of lines and shapes. You don’t necessarily need to say that just
because the slave boy can reason his way to geometric truth that his knowledge is inherently innate.
Another possible explanation for him knowing the answers is that Socrates was giving them to him,
just in the form of questions and was teaching him through experience even if he didn’t properly tell
him the answers.
