Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Reid's direct realism holds that perception involves non-inferential, immediate apprehension of external objects and their primary qualities via natural signs.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Sensory illusions and hallucinations show perception can seem direct while failing to access external objects at all.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Neurophysiology reveals complex causal chains between objects and conscious experience, undermining 'immediacy' claims.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Natural signs require prior learning and contextual interpretation, suggesting implicit inferential processing, not bare apprehension.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Perceptual experience has phenomenological directness that resists reduction to inference or representation.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Natural signs (like smoke signifying fire) operate non-inferentially through habitual association, not conscious reasoning.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Skepticism about direct object access leads to infinite regress of representations, making direct realism more parsimonious.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.