1811389
Description
Flashcards by penguincej, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by penguincej
almost 10 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| Epistemology - Perception | The study of knowledge - How we see the world around us |
| What is Direct Realism? | The theory that we see the world around us as it truly is - everyone's perception of the world is there for the same |
| Arguments against Direct Realism - What is the argument for Perceptual Variation? | - our perception has variations in it - these variations have no corresponding changes in the physical object - therefore, physical objects and our perception must be separate things - our perception is not always the same as what actually exists -consequently, we don't perceive the world directly |
| Give an example to explain Perceptual Variation | Russell's Table Example - A table may be a brown colour in real life, however in some lights the table may appear to be white or another colour because of reflections but the true colour of the table remains unchanged |
| What is the problem with using the Argument for Perceptual Variation to disprove Direct Realism? | It can lead to Scepticism - if we don't perceive objects directly how can we ever be sure of anything we perceive? |
| Arguments against Direct Realism - What is the argument from Illusion? | - there are illusions in our perception - we perceive illusions without any corresponding changes in the physical object - therefore an object's physical properties and appearance must be separate - we can therefore conclude that our perception sometimes presents us with errors - thus we must not perceive the world directly as our perception is different to what exists independently of our mind |
| Give an example to explain the argument from Illusion | Eg The Wobbly Pen - If we hold a pen loosely between our thumb and first finger and shake it up and down slightly, quite quickly, the pen appears to bend and wobble, however, the pen actually remains straight and solid, it is just our perception that tells us it is bending |
| What is the problem with using the argument from Illusion to disprove Direct Realism? | It can lead to Scepticism - if we can not trust our perception to reliably deliver information about the external world how do we know what it is really like? |
| Arguments against Direct Realism - What is the argument from Hallucination? | - with hallucinations we perceive things that don't exist - therefore, what we are perceiving is only in our mind - however, it is often almost impossible for us to distinguish between hallucinations and real perceptions - therefore, it must be wrong to argue that our perception and reality are the same and both mind independent, so we must not perceive the world directly |
| Give an example to explain the argument from Hallucination | Eg Mirages - When is it very hot it can often look like there are areas of water in the distance because of how the air and land appear to us. However, there is in fact nothing there even though we perceived it. Therefore, we must have perceived it within our head so our perception can't be mind independant |
| What is the problem with using the argument from Hallucination to disprove Direct Realism? | When we hallucinate everything is happening within our own heads so we are technically imagining it all, not perceiving it, so it doesn't contradict direct realism |
| Arguments against Direct Realism - The Time-lag Argument | - it takes time for light to travel, get reflected off the object the picked up by our eyes - if the sun exploded we wouldn't know for another 8 minutes because of the time light takes to travel - therefore, we are actually perceiving everything in the past - consequently we can't be perceiving the world directly as we always perceive it after is has happened |
| What is the problem with using the Time-lag Argument to disprove Direct Realism? | According to this argument we are still seeing what is physically there, just in the past, so in a sense we are still perceiving the world directly |
| Arguments against Direct Realism - The argument for Sense Data | - Russell came up with a theory that suggests that our perception is based of a sensation given off by a physical object, he calls this sense data - the objects emit sense data such as the colour/shape of the object and our sense organs pick up this data and interpret it into what we perceive - therefore, the object exists independently of our mind but the sense data is mind dependent so this part of the object ceases to exist when it is not being perceived - thus we can conclude that what we perceive directly is not the physical object but the sense data |
| Argument against criticisms of Direct Realism - Common Sense Realism | This idea is that we do see the world directly with this use of our senses. However, our minds then interpret this information. This explains why there is variation in our perception and errors (illusions). It is also counter-intuitive to believe that we perceive the world though another means |
| Draw a diagram to represent Direct Realism | |
| What is Indirect Realism? | Indirect Realism claims that we perceive physical objects via mind-dependent sense-data that is caused by and represents the physical object. We perceive the sense-data immediately and physical objects indirectly |
| How can the argument from Perceptual Variation be used to support Indirect Realism? | - there are variations in the way we perceive the world - we could conclude from this that the world is not as we perceive it - if we are perceiving a different world from the one that exist then we must be perceiving the real physical indirectly for us to have errors in our perception |
| How can the argument for Illusion be used to support Indirect Realism? | - sometimes we perceive the world differently to how it physically is or even perceive things that don't exist - so we can't possibly see things directly as we know that there are changes in our perception that don't correspond with the physical world - therefore, we must perceive the world indirectly |
| What is Sense-Data? | Sense data could also be called our appearances of physical objects. Sense data is always mind-dependent and tells how an object looks. Because it is all mind dependent then there are often variations in how people perceive the physical world because the sense-data is open to interpretation by the mind. Also sense-data only exists whilst being experienced. Therefore, all that exists whilst an object is being perceived is the physical object itself, none of its appearances exist. |
| Arguments against Indirect Realism - What is the problem with the argument from sense-data? | - according the theory of sense-data it only exists whilst it is being perceived - so if the sense-data is caused by the physical object what happens to it when no one is experiencing it? - how do we know that the physical world really exists outside of our mind? |
| Arguments against Indirect Realism - What is the argument for Scepticism of the Existence of the External World? | - all we know is sense-data, we only presume that physical objects exist - yet there must be physical objects in orders to emit the sense-data - this leads us to a sceptical line of thought against indirect realism - therefore, we can't prove that indirect realism is true |
| Response to Scepticism of the Existence of the External World - What is the Best Hypothesis Argument? | - there are 2 conclusions to be drawn, either we perceive sense-data caused by physical objects, or physical objects don't exist and neither does sense-data - we can't prove either claim so they are therefore both hypothesis' - the hypothesis that physical objects exist is the better of the two - so we should therefore conclude that the physical world does exist as it is the best hypothesis |
| Response to Scepticism of the Existence of the External World - What is the Lack of Choice Argument> | - we perceive sense-data whether we want to or not is it must be caused by some external source - also senses confirm what our other senses show eg. we see a fire and if we touch it's hot - therefore, the external world must exist |
| Why may the Best Hypothesis Theory not work? | Maybe it's not the best hypothesis, maybe we haven't thought of all the options |
| Why may the Lack of Choice argument not work? | This argument doesn't prove that physical objects exist as you could argue that it is all still being generated by some other means, eg a supercomputer - it's still an hypothesis |
| Argument against Indirect Realism - What is the Argument for the External World not being a Hypothesis | - direct realists would argue that the external world is not an hypothesis - we perceive the external world through our perception so we can conclude that it exists |
| Arguments against Indirect Realism - What are the problems of Representation and Causation? | - if sense-data represents physical objects we must have seen the object in the first place to know the sense-data represents it - also if sense-data is caused be physical objects we must experience the cause and effect to notice the connection between them - therefore, if the physical world is remote we can never know if it exists or not |
| What is John Locke's theory of Representative Realism? | Representative Realism is the idea that we have direct access to experiences cause by objects, not the physical objects themselves |
| What are Primary Qualities? | They are qualities that are mind-independent, for example shape, weight, motion ect. |
| What are Secondary Qualities? | They are qualities that are only present when being perceived and these qualities are projected onto the world by the perceiver, for example colour, smell, sound, taste ect |
| What are the Strengths of Representative Realism? | - It fits with Scientific Understanding: science says secondary qualities, eg colour/smell/sound/ect, don't physically exist, they are waves chemicals instead - It explains Illusion/Perceptual Variation: illusions mean you see something that doesn't actually exist, you're perceiving the secondary qualities and these don't exist |
| Argument against Representative Realism - What is the argument for scepticism of the nature of the external world? | - how do we know what the real life is like if all we can see is sense data? - How can we tell if our senses are deceiving us or not if we can't step outside of our minds and adapt a God-like perspective to see if we are being deceived or no? |
| Argument against Representative Realism- What is the argument for the Veil of Perception? | - How do we know what is beyond our sense experiences - Perhaps there is nothing at all? |
| Argument against Representative Realism- What is the argument for the Trap of Solipsism? | - We can't be sure that the external world actually exists - All that we know is our mind and our senses - So perhaps that is all that exists in the world |
| Draw a Diagram to represent Indirect Realism | |
| What are the three main Ontologies? | Materialism - the belief that the world is entirely made up of matter Dualism - the belief that matter exists and so does the mind/spirit Idealism - the belief that what exists depends on the mind so the external world doesn't exist outside the mind |
| What is Idealism? | Bishop George Berkeley came up with a theory for how we perceive the world called Idealism. He states that Idealism denies the existence of mind-independent objects, the only things that exist are in our minds. All that we can access are our experiences so why should there be anything else that exists?Objects cease to exist once they are no longer being perceived |
| What is the argument that lead George Berkeley to the conclusion of Idealism? | - when we perceive objects we don't perceive anything in addition to its primary and secondary qualities, eg we see it's colour, shape, smell, sound, but there is nothing extra that we perceive about the object - therefore, everything we perceive is either a primary or secondary quality, which are both mind-dependent - therefore, nothing we perceive is independent of our mind - consequently, the argument for Idealism fits in with this reasoning |
| What is George Berkeley's Master Argument? | - you can't think of an object that is unperceived by anyone because you aren't thinking of an object that exists independently of the mind - you are constantly thinking of such object - so therefore no object that we think of can be neither conceived or perceived - we can only think of the idea of the object not the object that exists independently of our mind |
| Arguments against Idealism - What are the points made for how Idealism doesn't explain perceptual errors? | - according to Idealism there is no distinction between illusions and veridical perception - how can you explain the differences between perceptual error and veridical perception if it is all happening within your mind? - how can you tell the difference between imagination and real life? |
| How do Idealists and Berkeley respond to the criticism of perceptual error? | - Idealist refer to the regularity of past experiences to explain how we can distinguish perceptual error; this is inductive reasoning - Berkeley argued that i can't choose what I perceive - ideas of sense have stability, coherence and order, which imagination lacks |
| Arguments against Idealism - How does Idealism lead to solipsism | - Idealism suggests that everything I experience is in my head - so we could conclude that all that exists is my mind and my experiences - therefore, there is no way of knowing that anyone else exists - consequently, this makes Berkeley's argument solipsistic |
| Arguments against Idealism - What is the problem with unperceived objects | - what happens to objects when no one is perceiving them? - Idealism suggests they cease to exist - this implies that there is a gap in existence - if this is true, how do you explain this: you light a fire, leave the room, come back, the fire has died down |
| Arguments against Idealism - What is the problem of Idealism and predictability and regularity? | - example: put in a draw, close the draw, I expect when I open the draw for the same apple to be there and for it to taste like an apple - a realist would say this is because the physical apple exists and causes the sensations - however, an Idealist can't account for the regularity |
| How could you answer the criticisms of unperceived objects and predictability/regularity? | Our mind is logical so therefore we create an "expected" state so that there is regularity |
| How does Berkeley use God to explain away possible criticisms of Idealism? | Illusions - in veridical perception the ideas originate in God but in illusions they don't Science - God lays down the regularities in science and puts this regularity into our minds and perception Objective time and space - regularities are in the mind of God so space and time exist within the mind of God Solipsism - my perceptions don't originate in my mind, they are caused by God's mind Why do we perceive what we do? - physical objects are mind dependent so are either caused by ideas, my mind, another being's mind, however, ideas don't cause anything and if my mind caused my perception surely I would be able to control it, therefore perception must originate in another mind and given the complexity of the world this must be God's mind |
| What is the criticism of Berkeley's responses using God? | Materialists say that Berkeley's use of God is dishonest and relies on the assumption that God exists |
| Strengths of Idealism | - criticises Locke within his own terms - his arguments are logical - he defeats criticisms of Representative Realism - he possess solid responses to criticisms of Idealism |
| Weaknesses of Idealism | - "It is absurd" - doesn't pass the principle of Occam's razor - it is counter intuitive - it is not the best explanation - Solipsism - the nature of God's existence - we don't perceive God so therefore he doesn't exist - doesn't tie in with modern science |
| Draw a diagram to explain Idealism |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.