What Is The Indirect Realist Theory Of Perception? Is It A Defensible Position?

This essay is to do with a part of the theory of knowledge, specifically about the theory of indirect realism, which deals with how we perceive the world. First, it is important to set out what the indirect realist theory of perception actually is. Secondly the essay will attempt to assess whether this is a defensible position to take. To do this I will be looking through some arguments for the theory from some notable philosophers. I will also examine some counter arguments to this claim including the Ð''homunculus' problem and the problem of psychophysical causation. I then hope to come to a conclusion as to whether indirect realism is a sound theory.

So, what is the indirect realist theory? Indirect realism, also known as representative realism is the philosophical theory that what we see are real objects but we perceive these objects via the medium of what you perceive in the 1st instance, namely the images that represent them to you . So, we see the world indirectly by way of seeing sense-data directly. For instance, when we see a car we are not seeing the actual object but just a representation of that object. Indirect realists believe that there is no way of having first hand knowledge of the real world because everything we perceive is done so via a perceptual intermediary. There is a three part journey in the theory of indirect realism which is; the perceiver, who perceives the perception, which represents the object itself. This of course differs from naÐ"Їve realism which only has a two part journey; the perceiver perceives the object.

Perhaps the most common argument supporting the indirect realists view is the argument from illusion. This arguments main point is that what we perceive in the 1st instance when we see an illusion is not the real object that is causing your experience. It is just an image of that object, so, to use a well know example, a stick put into a glass looks bent in the first instance. However, we know that this is an illusion, it is the effects of light waves that are cause us to view the stick as bent. The stick cannot be both straight and bent so it follows that one of these perceptions is misleading us. However, we cannot say that these perceptions are not real, so it has to be some kind of Ð''sense-datum' that is causing this misleading perception in our minds. However, as we know, there are some perceptions that present objects as they really are. The question is how can we tell what is real and what is an illusion? There is no intrinsic difference between perceptions which are veridical and those which are delusive . So it follows that we have no real reason to think that the two perceptions are essentially different. The indirect realist argues that this shows that what we perceive in the 1st instance is sense-data rather than the real, everyday object.

Another argument in support of indirect realism is the argument from the scientific account of perception. One of the main points offered in this argument is that our perception of an object could change depending on the conditions of our perception or perhaps the conditions of our relevant sense organs and the resulting causal process that follows. There is no change in the actual object only in the process in which we perceive the object and this change in process changes our perception of the object. So for example, a mad scientist could artificially stimulate your brain in such a way that causes you to perceive a red car when really there is no car at all . However, there is again no intrinsic difference between this false perception and a true perception. Again it follows that therefore that there has to be some medium in between the object and the perceiver. This is again what the indirect realist calls sense data.

Now we have seen a couple of arguments in defense of this position so we will now examine some arguments against indirect realism. The first most common argument is the Ð''homunculus' problem. To put into basic terms, this is the idea that sense-data are images that represent objects. Images have to be viewed to be seen, so what is viewing these images? Perhaps there is a little man in your mind that views these images. However, then again, images are things that you see, so the little man in your head must have an even littler man in his head which can view the images. This theory is infinite. There must be an infinite regress of homunculi for this theory to work and to imagine that you have an infinite number of little men in your head is ridiculous and completely illogical .

Another

...