Summary

Summary - epistemology - perception as a source of knowledge (7172)

0 purchase

Course
Epistemology - perception as a source of knowledge (7172)

Institution
AQA

A summary sheet of all year 1 epistemology perception as a source of knowledge. covering topics of direct and indirect realism and idealism. in this sheet it contains the strengths and weaknesses of each theory, possible responses and overall judgement. it provides a framework to aid in answering b...

[Show more]

Preview 3 out of 20 pages

View example

Uploaded on June 17, 2024
Number of pages 20
Written in 2023/2024
Type Summary

bertrand russell
aqa
berkeley
john locke
epistemology
paper 1
direct realism
indirect realism
idealism
perception as a source of knowledge

Study Level
A/AS Level
Examinator
AQA
Subject
Philosophy
Unit
Epistemology - perception as a source of knowledge (7172)

$7.77

Add to cart

Save

100% satisfaction guarantee
Immediately available after payment
Both online and in PDF
No strings attached

Perception as a source of knowledge – concepts, potential response, and overall
conclusion

Direct realism:
- View that the external world exists independently of the mind (hence, realism)
- We perceive the external world directly (hence, direct)

- When you look at and perceive a tree you are directly perceiving a tree that
exists ‘out there’ in the world – you are also perceiving its properties (size,
shape, smell, etc).
 So immediate objects of perception are mind-independent objects and their
properties.

Strengths of direct realism:

- Common-sense theory – means that we are inclined by instinct – also means
that more people will accept it.
- Avoids scepticism – gives us a clear account of how it is that we come to have
knowledge of the world: we know about it because our senses provide
immediate access to its true nature.
- Has explanatory power – it is true that I am directly aware of physical reality and
its properties – explains why I am able to execute a whole range of practical
actions on a daily bases – such as finding food that I need to survive.
- Explains why I perceive what I do – I have no control over what I see when I
open my eyes – because there really are mind-independent objects causing me
to perceive.
- Explains why we agree about what we perceive and is in tune with our sense
that we occupy the same universe as everyone else.

Problems of direct realism:

1.

Bertrand Context: chapter 1 of his problems of philosophy
Russell
(indirect The appearance of physical objects can vary depending on the
realist): conditions under which they are perceived.
argument
from Example:
perceptual The shape of the table looking at it directly overhead may appear
variation rectangular BUT from a few metres away it may look kite-shaped.
BUT it cannot be this two things at once according to direct realism
hence disproving direct realism.

Argument outlined as:
P1: direct realism claims that the immediate objects of perception
are material objects and their properties (such as colours, textures

, and shapes).
P2: but when we perceive physical objects the appearance of their
properties can vary.
P3: the properties of the objects themselves don’t vary.
C: so direct realism is false: the apparent properties are not the same
as the real properties of physical objects.
Berkeley Context: in his first dialogue
(idealist):
argument Example:
from Place one hot hand and one cold hand into a bowl of lukewarm water
perceptual the water would appear cold to one and hot to the other.
variation - Berkeley uses this example to reduce to absurdity the realist
claim that the perceived qualities exist in matter as they are
perceived.

Argument outlined as:
P1: direct realism claims material objects possess mind-independent
properties (such as heat/cold, tastes, smells and colours) which we
directly perceive.
P2: but material objects are perceived to have incompatible
properties (e.g. cold and hot at the same time).
P3: they cannot possess incompatible properties in reality (this is
contradictory).
C: therefore direct realism is false: material objects do not possess
such properties.
Which Berkeley’s conclusion = far better than Russell’s.
argument is - Russell doesn’t deny that objects have real properties only that
better? we don’t perceive them directly as they are.
- Berkeley’s conclusion= the perceived quality of objects are in
the mind, rather than in the objects.

Possible Direct realism:
response Can accept that objects may appear differently to perceivers – still
insist that they are still being directly perceived.
- E.g. water that is lukewarm can appear cold to a perceiver
doesn’t mean that it is not being directly perceived nor does it
mean that there must be something – the appearance of cold,
which is directly perceived and distinct from the water itself.
- So it (the sense) can appear differently because of differences
in the state of the organs of the sense – e.g. having cold hand
or hot hand – so there is no need to posit the existence of
some third thing, the appearance, meditating between the
perceiver and perceived.
- These ‘perceptual variations’ can be explained through
different lighting conditions and angles (table example:
Russell).

Relational properties – a property that varies in relation to something
else.
- E.g. London won’t have the property of ‘southness’ to all
perceivers.
- So for the table argument – we could say that the table has the
(mind-independent) relational property of appearing kite-
shaped relative to certain perceivers, whilst simultaneously

, having the (mind-independent) relational property of appearing
square to other perceivers.
- The table has both these mind-independent properties – but
which one you perceive will vary depending on where you are.
So, the object itself does not change but the perceiver does – thus
the perceived properties of the object change.

Overall Direct realism is still a weak argument – because if we change the
judgement conditions then our perceptions change which is echoed through the
response. So, it does not adequately explain why perceptual
variation occurs.
2.

Argument Direct realism says that we perceive the external world directly as it
from illusion is – but if this is true how is that reality (i.e. the external world) can
be different to our perception of it? – e.g. pencil in glass of water can
look crooked even though it isn’t – BUT if direct realism was true then
the external world would be exactly as we perceive it – BUT in the
case of illusions there is an obvious difference between our
perception and reality.

P1: when subject to an illusion an object appears to a perceiver to
have a particular property (e.g. straw appears bent).
P2: the perceiver is directly aware of this apparent property (e.g. a
bent-looking straw).
P3: but the object doesn’t have this property in reality (e.g. the real
straw is not bent).
C1: so, what the perceiver is directly aware of (the bent straw) and
what is real (the straight straw) are distinct.
C2: so, direct realism is false: we do not perceive physical objects
directly.

Possible Direct realists would argue that the second premise misinterprets the
response situation – instead they (direct realists) would say that I am directly
aware of the real straw, but that it appears bent because of
circumstances (e.g. the light travelling through two different
mediums).
- We don’t have to suppose that objects have to appear exactly
as they are. And, if we accept that they can appear differently
because of the way they relate to the perceiver then we don’t
have to posit things called ‘sense data’.

Relational properties – the direct realist could respond by saying that
the pencil/ straw has the relational property of looking crooked to
certain perceivers even if it isn’t really crooked.

Overall Direct realism still does not provide a strong enough account – this is
judgement as relational properties are arguably the same as the indirect realists
claim of perceptual variation. So, their argument becomes more
diluted due to appearing/ mimicking indirect realism.

3.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller shaunnagrennan. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $7.77. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

66184 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 15 years now

Start selling