![]() London has the (mind-independent) property of being South of Leeds, for example, but it’s not like London has the property of ‘Southness’ relative to all perceivers – if you’re in Spain then London is North of you.Īpplying this to perception, we could say that the table has the (mind-independent) relational property of appearing kite-shaped relative to certain perceivers, whilst simultaneously having the (mind-independent) relational property of appearing square-shaped to other perceivers. For example, being to the North or South of something, or being left or right of something, are all real and mind-independent properties that something can have – but they vary relative to other objects. However, according to direct realism, there should be no such differences between perception and reality.ĭirect realism can respond by refining the theory and introducing the idea of relational properties.Ī relational property is one that varies in relation to something else. These examples highlight differences in our perception of the table and the table itself. But from a few metres away it may look kite-shaped. From directly overhead, it may appear to be rectangular. Russell also talks about the shape of a table. But to someone standing on the other side of the room, there may be no white spot.īut the white spot is either there or it isn’t – it can’t be both! So, at least one of us is not perceiving the table directly as it is. Problems for direct realism Bertrand Russell: Argument from perceptual variation The shape of the table looks different depending on the angle you are perceiving it fromĭifferences in perceptual variation provide a problem for direct realism.įor example, when I stand on one side of the room, a shiny wooden table may have a white spot where the light is shining on it. However, there are a number of issues with this simple explanation. “Brown patches of sense data in a rectangular arrangement.”Īt least on the face of it, perceptual experience presents itself to us as mind-independent objects. When asked what you see, you describe the external object itself, not your perception of it. So, the immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties.ĭirect realism is often thought of as the common sense theory of perception. You are also perceiving its properties (size, shape, smell, etc.). When you look at, and perceive, a tree, you are directly perceiving a tree that exists ‘out there’ in the world. So, basically, what you see is what you get. And we perceive the external world directly (hence, direct).The external world exists independently of the mind (hence, realism).“The immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their properties.” Each theory also has various arguments for and against. anti-realism) and the way we perceive it (direct vs. The theories disagree over such issues as whether the external world exists (realism vs. This A level philosophy topic looks at 3 theories of perception that explain how we can acquire knowledge from experience, i.e.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |