Talk:Direct realism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
The following statement's spelling and grammar are far below standard and need to be revised. : —Preceding unsigned comment added by M^A^L (talk • contribs) 13:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC) This entry is Far bellow standard and needs to be revised. :
"This conclusion shows that direct realism simply defines perception as perception of external objects where an 'external object' is allowed to be a photon in the eye but not an impulse in a nerve leading from the eye." --- This does not follow at all from what has been said. Further, most direct realists will maintain that you do not perceive light when you perceive an object via light. This is very much like the common genetic fallacy. For one example of a direct realist (about observables) who maintains light itself is unobservable, read Bas C van Fraassen "Constructive Empiricism Now".
"At most Western universities, direct realism is taught as obviously false, a long-refuted theory in philosophy of perception. [citation needed]"
This is news to me! The first 5 decades of the 20th century were devoted to destroying the view that all we perceive, strictly speaking, are our own sense-data. Today there is a consensus extremely rare amongst philosophers: we are not aware of our own private sense-data; we can have non-inferential knowledge of material objects. Analytic philosophers are more or less agreed that it was a massive mistake to say otherwise. Locke lead to Berkeley who lead inexorably to Kant and then it was all down-hill to Hegel and the rest of the German philosophers whose names start with "H"! I strongly recommend emphasizing the opposite point:
``At most Western universities, INDIRECT realism is taught as obviously false, a long-refuted theory in philosophy of perception. Citations would include many of Austin's contemporaries, Stroud, McDowell, van Fraassen, Putnam (the more recent Putnam) and countless others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.26.206 (talk) 03:03, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
The direct realist approach
The person who wrote this piece has given a really good example of direct realist reasoning. In the philosophy of perception it was a POV rant but it is a shame to waste it.
(JlAustin is well known for arguing this) Who is JlAustin? I don't have a problem with whoever he is, but how should we link it? Does he have an existing article I can't find? -- Dreamyshade
J L Austin?
I would assume that the author intends to refer to the philosopher J. L. Austin, for whom there is an article. J. L. Austin --Robert Bruce 12:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
