Feedback from 5 mark question:
Outline and explain the argument from perceptual
variation as an objection to direct realism.
•
•
•
•
Point to consider:
DR = objects are mind-independent. When we
perceive physical objects, we perceive them directly
i.e. as they really are in the external world.
Spelling!!!!! Perceive not Percieve
The argument from perceptual variation in simple
terms: the way we see the object changes, but the
object does not change itself.
Always include a concluding statement that links back
and refers to the question.
Does DR’s responses to the argument from perceptual
variation keep DR intact?
Create a table and in pairs come up with at least 2
reasons in each side:
YES – DR withstands the argument NO – DR does not withstand the
from perceptual variation
argument from perceptual variation
Although we may not perceive the
world precisely as it is, does not
imply that we don’t perceive it
directly.
No two people will have the exact
same perception of a table: the
appearance will change with point of
view. Therefore what we will only
ever directly perceive is sense-data.
Without having prior
knowledge of a straw,
glass or water, would
you perceive the straw
to be just as it appears
in this image?
How could a straw in a glass of water be used to
critique direct realism?
Task:
Using the example above, create an argument in
Standard Form – i.e. P1, P2, IC & C – to critique direct
realism.
Standard form - Example:
Premise 1 – All men are mortal.
Premise 2 – Socrates is a man.
Conclusion – Socrates is mortal.
R1. I have a straw, which appears to me to be
straight, but when it is half submerged in water it
seems to bend and distort.
R2. I know that the straw is straight and that its
apparent flexibility is a result of its being seen
through the water.
IC. Yet I cannot change the mental image I have of
the straw being bent.
C. Since the stick is not in fact bent its appearance
can be described as an illusion. I am seeing the
straw indirectly.
In which part(s) does this argument attack DR?
A critique of direct realism: The argument
from Illusion – a straw in water
R1. When I look at a straw in water, I see
something that is bent.
R2. The bent thing cannot be the straw itself.
IC. So it must be a mental image of the stick – a
sense-data.
C. But this means I see the straw indirectly, by
seeing its sense-data – in which case direct
realism is false.
In simple terms, in reality I don’t directly perceive the
straw itself, but an appearance of the straw.
A Critique of Direct Realism:
The argument from illusion
• It happens on occasion that I perceive an object
which appears to be one thing, when in reality it is
another i.e. the straw in water.
• The conclusion is drawn that what we immediately
perceive cannot be what is in the world, since what
we are perceiving is not the same as what is really
there.
• Errors of perception only occur when I make
judgments on the basis of sense data concerning
what causes them.
Can you think of occasions
when you have been
deceived by your senses in
this way?
In pairs come up with three examples of
perceptual illusions.
Which is the better challenge to DR?
Argument from perceptual variation
OR
Argument from illusion?
Summarise how direct realists attempt to
defend direct realism from the argument from
illusion. (Read pp. 33 – 34 in Lacewing)
DR response to argument from illusion.
• In such situations the senses accurately reveal the world to
us, but its just that we misinterpret what we perceive.
• The physical object has the property of looking a certain
way. Therefore what you perceive is how the physical object
looks.
• Take the example of the straw in water There is a
difference between the property ‘being straight’ and the
property ‘looking straight’. Therefore DR argues that
sometimes we experience properties they have that don’t
directly relate to how they are perceived. Nevertheless, in
both cases we are directly perceiving physical objects and
their properties.
The direct realist’s defence
overcomes the criticism
put forward by the
argument from illusion.
How far do you agree with this statement?
Discuss it with your neighbour. Be ready to
feedback!
Outline and explain how direct
realists respond to the argument
from illusion.
(9 marks)
What is this question asking you to do??
What is it not asking us to do?
How would you structure it?
7 - 9 The answer is set out in a clear, integrated and logical form. The content of
the answer is correct. The material is clearly relevant and points are made
clearly and precisely.
There may be some redundancy or lack of clarity in particular points, but
not sufficient to detract from the answer.
Technical philosophical language is used appropriately and consistently.
4 - 6 The answer is clear and set out in a coherent form, with logical/causal links
identified. The content of the answer is largely correct, though not
necessarily well integrated. Some points are made clearly, but relevance is
not always sustained.
Technical philosophical language is used, though not always consistently or
appropriately.
1 - 3 There are some relevant points made, but no integration. There is a lack of
precision – with possibly insufficient material that is relevant or too much
that is irrelevant
0
Nothing to credit.