1 Selection from Jonathan Dancy, Introduction to Contemporary
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Selection from Jonathan Dancy, Introduction to Contemporary themselves. Our initial definition of direct perception may be Epistemology, Blackwell, 1985, pp. 144-174. vague, but it is not so vague as to be useless. We shall take it that a perceiver P directly perceives an object O if P perceives O without perceiving any intermediary I. P would be perceiving an intermediary I if, as things are, it is only in virtue of perceiving I that P perceives O. P’s relation to the intermediary I, if there is 10.2 THEORIES OF PERCEPTION one, need not for these purposes be exactly the same as P’s relation to O, and commonly will not be. The way in which P is There are three main families of theories of perception: direct aware of I need only be analogous to the way in which P is realism, indirect realism and phenomenalism. In this chapter we aware of O. So examples of indirect perception might be one’s will be doing a bit of philosophical geography and picking out perception of oneself in a mirror and one’s perception of an actor the main members of each family and the sorts of considerations on the television. There is in both cases a more immediate object used in their favour and against them. To avoid clutter, I have of awareness, in perceiving which one is said to perceive oneself avoided attributing positions to their main protagonists until the and the actor; the intermediary object, of which one is here references at the end of the chapter, where there is also a map of directly aware, perhaps, is the reflection in one case and the the positions to which it may be helpful to refer. image in the other. First, for an initial grasp of the differences between the three Indirect perception has been defined here in terms of families we need to get a preliminary view of what is meant by analogous sorts of awareness. There will be sorts of awareness realism in this context, and what the contrast is between the which are not perceptual, e.g. the awareness of pain, perhaps, or direct and the indirect. of the position of one’s own limbs. So when we speak of Realism in the theory of perception (which we shall call perception as awareness we must remember the existence of perceptual realism) can be initially but vaguely characterized as non-perceptual awareness. the view that the objects we perceive are able to and commonly Now the dispute between the direct realist and the indirect do exist and retain some at least of the properties we perceive realist concerns the question whether we are ever directly aware them as having, even when they are unperceived. This is to say of the existence and nature of physical objects. Both, as realists, that the existence of the objects we perceive and at least part of agree that the physical objects we see and touch are able to exist their nature is independent of the existence of any perceiver. and retain some of their properties when unperceived. But the This sort of realism looks different from that discussed in 1.4 and indirect realist asserts that we are never directly aware of 9.5, which we shall call metaphysical realism. We shall physical objects; we are only indirectly aware of them, in virtue eventually have to decide how the two sorts of realism are of a direct awareness of an intermediary object (variously related (11.6), but by then our account of perceptual realism will described as an idea, sense-datum, percept or appearance). The have been improved. direct realist denies this claim. The contrast between the direct and the indirect is notoriously Phenomenalism is a form of anti-realism; the phenomenalist slippery and difficult to pin down firmly, as we shall see. It is denies the existence of a physical world lying behind and able to sadly common for philosophers to inveigh against loose use of come apart from the world of experience. For him, the only this contrast in their opponents and then to do little better possible object of awareness is experience and complexes of 1 2 experiences; there is no reality apart from experience. If this is so, then to ‘most’ and so on, but it is simplest for us to view it in the the only objects of awareness are direct objects; there is nothing starkest and most extreme case. left over for us to perceive indirectly. The phenomenalist, then, Opposed to the naïve form of direct realism is scientific direct can be seen as agreeing with the direct realist about the realism. This scientific version takes it that science has shown directness of perception and the absence of intermediaries, but as that physical objects do not retain when unperceived all of the agreeing with the indirect realist that the direct objects of properties we perceive them as having; for some of those perception are not physical objects. This description is properties are dependent for their existence upon the existence of preliminary: it will be revised and, I fear, complicated in 10.6. ... a perceiver. Thus colour, taste, sound and smell, heat and roughness are not independent properties of the object which it [In this section Dancy also argues that even knowledge of our can retain unperceived. The object only has them in relation to own sensory states is fallible. For example, we might think than the perceiver. The scientific direct realist accepts the directness an object appears pink to us, when it actually appears orange. of our perception of the world, but restricts his realism to a Dancy recognises that this is controversial.] special group of properties. The distinction made here is a close relative of Locke’s distinction between primary and secondary qualities (see J. 10.3 DIRECT REALISM Locke, 1961, Bk 2 ch. 8). Locke held that the ‘primary’ qualities of shape, size, molecular texture and motion have a different Direct realism holds that in sense-perception we are directly status from that of the ‘secondary’ qualities such as colour, heat, aware of the existence and nature of the surrounding physical smell, taste etc. (we could call these the ‘sensory’ properties). world. All direct realists agree about this, the directness side of According to Locke, an object which we perceive as coloured things. They differ, however, in the degree of realism they are does not retain when unperceived any quality of the sort we willing to espouse. The realist, in our present sense, holds that perceive it as having. There is a sense in which it remains physical objects are able to exist and retain some at least of the coloured, of course; for its primary properties, which it does properties which we perceive them as having, even when retain, remain such that in suitable conditions it will look unperceived. The crucial phrase is ‘some at least’, and the coloured to the perceiver. An object retains the ‘primary quality question is which, exactly. We shall distinguish two types of ground’ for the secondary qualities it appears as having, then. direct realism, the naïve and the scientific; in the nature of the But colour-as-we-see-it, heat-as-we-feel-it and taste-as-we-taste- case, however, there must be many possible intermediate it are not properties which the object can be said to retain when positions. unperceived; and for that reason we cannot suppose that those The naïve direct realist holds that unperceived objects are able properties are independent properties of the object when it is to retain properties of all the types we perceive them as having. perceived. Colour-as-we-see-it is really more a property of our By this he means that an unperceived object may still have not way of being aware of the physical world than a property of that only a shape and size but also be hot or cold, have a colour, a world itself. taste and a smell, be rough or smooth and make a noise or keep Locke provided a miscellany of arguments for this position. silent. The naïveté of this position lies in the word ‘all’. The He suggested variously that experimental evidence forces it upon position becomes less naïve as ‘all’ retreats to ‘nearly all’ and us, and that the naïve alternative is inconceivable. A weaker 3 4 argument that the appeal to the inconceivability of any 10.4 INDIRECT REALISM alternative is an analogue of Ockham’s razor. This razor is the general principle that we should not multiply entities further than Indirect realism holds that in perception we are indirectly aware necessary; we should not, for instance, admit the existence of of the physical objects around us in virtue of a direct awareness numbers or of other putative sorts of entities unless we have of internal, non-physical objects. literally no alternative. The analogue of this argument in our This is the most straightforward form of indirect realism, and present case is that we should not admit the existence of a sort of it is the one with which this section is concerned. There are property if we can avoid it. Parsimony is always the right attitude further forms of indirect realism which will be mentioned (only in metaphysics, perhaps. And now the appeal to science can to be rejected) in chapter 11. They include the suggestion that we come in. For we can say that the sorts of explanation that are never aware of physical objects, but infer their presence from contemporary physics offers give us no need to suppose that the the nature of the internal objects of which we are (directly) secondary qualities are independent properties of physical aware.