• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Is direct realism naive? Direct realism is mainly known as a starting point for theories of perception. They believe we perceive the objects directly.

Extracts from this document...


Is direct realism na�ve? Florence Iyamore Direct realism, also know as na�ve realism, is the view that what we see, feel, & touch is real. That we can acknowledge that an object (e.g. a Candle) that is in a room is real, and that we can confirm this through our senses. For a direct realist there is no difference between appearance and reality therefore they believe that if the eye (the perceiver) believes this object to be there, then it must be. Although other views would argue that not everything our eye see's may be the truth, such as Descartes' theory of the three waves of doubt. Direct realism is mainly known as a starting point for theories of perception. They believe we perceive the objects directly. That what we perceive is the object and not the representation. The representation that philosophers have called the sense-datum, which suggests that the objects we view in day-to-day life are not the objects themselves but a representation of it. ...read more.


So if the stick is straight but we see it bent. It must mean something must be bent. We have a mental image of a bent stick; this shows that we don't see the stick directly but indirectly, through sense-data. This questions whether our sense can be trusted. Counter arguments could be formed to rule this theory out. One could be that the eye is only one of our senses and that we have four more to be able to prove whether or not something is real. Another argument is that we could be able to use science to prove why the stick does not appear to be straight from one view and does from another. This questions the direct realist's theory on sense. Can we truly trust our senses? Hallucinations is another form of optical illusions and it does a lot to questions the direct realism's theory of, what our senses "sense" to be real must be. With hallucinations it sometimes appears to be so real that even then it is slightly undistinguishable and if the direct realists do not believe in appearance or reality then how do they know that they are not hallucinating daily, because hallucinations are able to fool the senses. ...read more.


An argument to argue the latter part of the theory is that other realists would not believe we may be able to experience/perceive the distance of an object. If so what do direct realists distinctively mean by the term 'experiencing the distance of an object'? Is direct realism na�ve? I believe so. They do not have enough evidence to explain and back up some of their theories so I would have to criticise their judgement. I do not believe that appearance and reality is necessarily the same thing but that we do directly experience things in the world. I do not believe in the sense-data theory because I do not think that we can experience a representation of something without directly/indirectly experiencing the object, so for that reason alone I would say that other realist views are na�ve in some of their view points. So direct realism should not be the only realist view classified as na�ve. I would conclude that direct realism, amongst other realist views, would be classified as na�ve. ?? ?? ?? ?? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Philosophy section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Philosophy essays

  1. Evaluate Descartes Method of Doubt

    By using his senses. His argument here is self-refuting, and in my opinion severely damages this first wave. One major problem with the second wave of doubt is the way Descartes words it. He claims 'there are no conclusive signs by means of which one can distinguish clearly between being awake and being asleep'

  2. Assess representative realism.

    Therefore, we can only really acknowledge our representations of the world, and not what it really consists of.

  1. Writing to argue.

    This gains many extra marks. * You need to show that your "opponent" can trust you - so make up a solid and believable reason why you are in a good position to argue over this issue. * An effective way of convincing someone that you are reasonable is to argue from a position of what is called "common ground".

  2. Outline and assess the main objections to representative realism

    Without actual independent access or a ?god?s eye view?, from which to observe both our sense impressions and the real world, it is impossible to know if we are being deceived or how, accurate our representations are. However, one response to this criticism is that sense data must just be as they appear.

  1. Do we perceive the world directly?

    Therefore disproving the idea that we experience the world directly. Another argument that disproves direct realism is presented by Russell. His argument from perceptual variation says that we can perceive obects differently depending on the angle in which we look at them.

  2. Physical Objects, Which Exist Independently of us, are the Immediate Objects of Perception. ...

    For representative realists, sensations are a representation, or picture of the world. This simply means that we have images in our minds that represent the real world. In this essay, I will argue that representative realism is far more plausible than direct realism, by defending versions of the argument from illusion and the argument for secondary qualities.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work