As @hypericin notes, and I agree, I think the concept of perceiving the world as it is (in itself) is an incoherent one.
↪Luke
yeah, I fully agree, and that's the part of direct realism that doesn't sit with me. — flannel jesus
The indirect realist desires a perception of the world as it is in itself, not the direct realist. — Luke
They therefore desire a perception untainted by representation. Doesn’t that make sense? — Luke
This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here. — Corvus
This point proves that the categorisation of indirect and direct realist is a myth. — Corvus
Your distinction seems to me to be one without a difference because photons are of the external world, and if so, one is immediately and directly perceiving the external world — NOS4A2
A factual statement about the contents of your sense organs and thoughts, not the facts of the objectivity of the world.This sounds like you are being pedantically sceptic here.
— Corvus
Perhaps, but still making a factual statement. — RussellA
Sure. No one is denying how it works in scientific terms IE photon of lights whatever. Here you must realise that photons of light is also an abstraction and conjecture of the workings of visual perception by the physicists and chemists. It is not an absolute proven fact. There are lots of abstractions and hypotheses even in science, which people take for granted as if it is a word from God.No-one could "see" anything if photons of light didn't travel through space from an "apple" in the external world to the eye, followed by an electrical signal travelling from the eye to the brain, which is then somehow processed by the brain, and which then somehow enables the mind to "see" an "apple". — RussellA
I knew you were engaging in some sort of language games. Part of the aim of philosophical discussions would be rescuing the folks swimming and drowning by confusion in the pool of the linguistic games, and letting them see, there is Mars, and there is a cat. You are just seeing Mars, and you are just seeing a cat. You didn't need indirect or directness to see them. :)I perhaps agree, in that the Indirect Realist and Direct Realist are playing different language games. The Indirect Realist is correct within their language game, and the Direct Realist is correct within their language game. — RussellA
I really don't care to argue what someone means, or should mean, by "I see x". — flannel jesus
I'm concerned primarily with the experience of it all - if a direct realist says "I see things as they really are", I don't see that as some opportunity for a semantic argument, to me it looks like an unambiguous statement about their visual experience — flannel jesus
Am I right in thinking that the Direct Realist believes that the apple is literally green, and if they do, how do they justify such a belief? — RussellA
No, you are tacking on that last bit yourself with seemingly no reason, is how it looks to me — flannel jesus
A factual statement about the contents of your sense organs and thoughts, not the facts of the objectivity of the world. — Corvus
Here you must realise that photons of light is also an abstraction — Corvus
The cat cannot see the mouse without its eyes. — Corvus
I knew you were engaging in some sort of language games. — Corvus
I take Luke to be saying that indirect realists think perception would have to be “untainted by representation” for it to be direct. — Jamal
I take Luke to be saying that indirect realists think perception would have to be “untainted by representation” for it to be direct. — Jamal
This is why many naive realists describe the relation at the heart of their view as a non-representational relation.
I don't know why he's assuming indirect realists want or demand direct realism to be true. — flannel jesus
However, I take direct realism to be the view that we do perceive real things but not things as they are in themselves — Luke
I therefore think that indirect realists fail to acknowledge that perception necessarily involves representation. — Luke
That's just what all versions on non skeptical realism have in common - direct and indirect realism are variations of that — flannel jesus
Isn't that exactly what indirect realists are claiming? That perception involves representation? — flannel jesus
This isn't about the sunset itself, this is about the qualia experience of the sunset, which only happens when we experience and focus in on the representation. — flannel jesus
This is more a question for the Direct Realist. Would they agree that perceiving photons of light entering the eye is what they mean by perceiving the external world?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.