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. He uses the example of a brown rectangular table. If we were to look at this object under normal circumstances, we would indeed see a brown rectangular table. However if we were to look at the table from a different angle, we may see a lighter shade of brown, especially if there is sun shining. Here Russell brings in the confusion between appearance and reality. If something is capable of appearing differenty to how it actually is, how do we know what the real object is and therefore how do we experience that object directly?
Both of these arguments seem to successfully disprove the theory of direct realism. However there are some flaws in both of these arguments. One flaw is with the argument from illusion. This argument says that, for us to perceive something as having a certain property, there must be something there that has that property. A direct realist would say that this is wrong. Using the stick in water as an example, they would say that because the stick looks crooked, not that it is crooked. This means that we are still able to view the object (the stick) and its property (looking crooked) directly.
A flaw with the argument from perceptual variation stems from Russells statement; "In normal conditions we are able to see the brown rectangular table as it is, however looking from different angles we can see different shades of brown." If we are capable of seeing the table as it is in normal conditions we are therefore capable of experiencing the table directly. It can also be argued that when we are seeing the variations in the colour brown like Russell said, we are still seeing the property of the table as being brown in colour, as apposed to seeing blue or pink. This shows that we do still perceive the object and its property directly.
The flaws with both of these arguments do seem strong enough to pick the arguments against direct realism apart. However Descartes' second argument, the argument from hallucination or dreams is a lot stronger than his first, mainly because dreams are a much more common occurrence than illusion. This argument says that when we dream, we are fooled by all of our senses at once. While we are dreaming, we are capable of experiencing objects and their properties. As we are not experiencing this object directly, Descartes says that what we are experiencing is sense data (meaning the concept of our perceptions). While we are asleep, it is impossible to distinguish between dreams and veridical variation (seeing something in real life). Therefore Descartes' believes that what we experience in dreams and reality is sense data and not the actual object.
It is the strength in the last argument that allows us to say that we do not perceive the world directly, at least not in all cases. It makes more sense to say that what we experience is sense data rather than the physical object. This theory allows us to experience things in both dreams and reality.
by
bazzaoxhotmailcouk (student)
