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

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

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

“Physical Objects, Which Exist Independently of us, are the Immediate Objects of Perception.’ Discuss (30 Marks) The theory of perception which the title is based on is direct realism. This type of realism is also known as “naïve realism” or common sense theory of perception. Direct realism claims that the world is pretty much as it appears to our senses. Every object is made up of matter; they occupy space, and have various geometric properties such as size, shape and also other properties such as texture, smell, taste and colour. Also according to direct realism, all of these properties are perceived directly. This essentially means that when we look at or touch something, we see and feel those things themselves and so observe them as they really are. On the other hand, the view that contrasts this type of realism is known as indirect realism, also known as “representative realism”. Indirect realists agree with the direct realists that the world is made up of material objects which occupy space, and that these materials possess certain independently existing properties. ...read more.

Middle

Yet another example is that of the thumb and the moon. If you hold your thumb up to the moon, it will look bigger, even though it obviously isn?t. If we were observing the moon directly, then it wouldn?t look smaller than the thumb. Therefore we can?t be seeing it directly; hence physical objects are not the immediate objects of perception. Furthermore, another attack of direct realism, and the statement made in the title, is the argument from illusion. This argument states that R1) When I look at a stick in water I see something that?s bent. R2) The bent thing cannot be the stick itself. IC) So it must be a mental image of the stick, a sense datum. C) This means that I must be seeing the stick indirectly, by seeing it as sense datum. In this argument the two reasons are essentially saying that when we perceive the stick in the water, what we see is an object that is bent, however, since the actual stick in the water isn?t bent, then what we?re seeing can?t be the real stick. ...read more.

Conclusion

or I am seeing the stick directly (if my experience Is veridical). I may also be unable to tell which situation I am in as well. However, the problem with disjuncitivism is that, it almost stops being direct realism or representative realism for that matter. It is almost ?cheating? by taking both sides. Therefore as a view to make a judgment about whether physical objects are the immediate objects of perception, it can?t really come to one judgment since it can take both sides. In conclusion I think that representative realism is far more plausible than direct realism because in the argument from illusion, it is very true that what we?re seeing can?t be the actual stick, because our perception shows us something that is bent. Therefore it only makes sense to believe that we must be perceiving sense datum. However the direct realists are only able to come up with weak responses, and like in the cases of disjunctivists, the end up supporting neither side, and just taking the side that they think is appropriate in each situation. Therefore physical objects which exists independently of us, are not the immediate objects of perception. ...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. Our freedom to make ethical choices is an illusion Discuss

    Modern physics seems to maintain that the most basic laws of nature are not deterministic but probabilistic. Einstein said "God does not play dice" but is apparently wrong. Ted Honderich also agreed that since everything is physically determined, there is no choice and so no personal responsibility.

  2. Is direct realism naive? Direct realism is mainly known as a starting point for ...

    Although Descartes' three waves of doubt would defy that. This is because in the first wave of doubt Descartes challenges their view of how our senses are the only thing we should trust to be truthful. Descartes' first wave of doubt is optical illusions and he shows us that sometimes what our eyes think to be true is not.

  1. Assess the claim that mental states cannot be reduced to physical states.

    Human beings can thus be reduced down to beings with, very complex, stimulus response mechanisms. We have a stimulus, a headache, this is then fed into the so called ?black box? ? the neurons do their thing ? and a response is produced: a whimper and a moan.

  2. Outline and assess the main objections to representative realism

    This difference between sense data and physical objects creates further problems for representative realists. For if sense-data are just as they appear, then people who perceive them must be aware of all of their properties. Yet, we don?t seem to be aware of all of the properties of our sense-data.

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