pdf (Español (España))
FLIP
Como Citar
J. Boongaling, P. A. . (2018). On the perils of A.D. Smith’s direct realism. Discusiones Filosóficas, 19(33), 15–30. https://doi.org/10.17151/difil.2018.19.33.2
Fomatos de Citação
Autores
Resumo
A rebuttal of the version of A.D. Smith’s version of direct realism according to which one can directly perceive the purely physical objects in the external world (Smith, 2002) is presented in this article. It is argued that, even if Smith can incorporate a characterization of veridical perception that takes into account the phenomenological character of our perceptual experiences, his theory of perception remains incoherent for it is unable to provide a solution to the inconsistency of the metaphysical and epistemic theses of his theory. For this reason, his version of direct realism is untenable.
Referências
Brock, Stuart and Edwin Mares. Realism and Anti-Realism. Durham, Acumen, 2007. Print.
Cavanagh, Patrick. “Visual cognition”. Vision Res, 51 (3). 2011: 1538- 1551. Print.
Colyvan, Mark. The Indispensability of Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.
Devitt, Michael. Realism/Anti-Realism. Eds. Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. London, Routledge, 2008. 224-35. Print.
Fish, William. Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Harman, Gilbert. “The Inference to the Best Explanation”. Philosophical Review, 74. 1965: 88-95. Print.
Leng, Mary. Mathematics and Reality. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.
Meadows, Philip John. “On A.D. Smith’s Constancy Based Defence of Direct Realism”. Philosophical Studies, 163 (2). 2013: 513-525. Print.
Poltoratski, Sonia et al. “Characterizing the effects of feature salience and top-down attention in the early visual system”. J Neurophysiol, 118. 2017: 564-73. Print.
Prinz, Jesse. “Empiricism”. Eds. Barber A. and R. Stainton, Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam, Elsevier Ltd, 2010. 183-5. Print.
Quine, Willard Van Orman. The Ways of Paradox, and Other Essays: Revised and Enlarged Edition. Harvard, Harvard University Press, 1976. Print.
Smith, Anthony David. Philosophy of Perception. Massachusetts, Cambridge, 2002. Print.
Tarski, Alfred. Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of the Deductive Sciences. 4th ed., New York, Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.
Cavanagh, Patrick. “Visual cognition”. Vision Res, 51 (3). 2011: 1538- 1551. Print.
Colyvan, Mark. The Indispensability of Mathematics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.
Devitt, Michael. Realism/Anti-Realism. Eds. Stathis Psillos and Martin Curd, The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science. London, Routledge, 2008. 224-35. Print.
Fish, William. Perception, Hallucination, and Illusion. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.
Harman, Gilbert. “The Inference to the Best Explanation”. Philosophical Review, 74. 1965: 88-95. Print.
Leng, Mary. Mathematics and Reality. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010. Print.
Meadows, Philip John. “On A.D. Smith’s Constancy Based Defence of Direct Realism”. Philosophical Studies, 163 (2). 2013: 513-525. Print.
Poltoratski, Sonia et al. “Characterizing the effects of feature salience and top-down attention in the early visual system”. J Neurophysiol, 118. 2017: 564-73. Print.
Prinz, Jesse. “Empiricism”. Eds. Barber A. and R. Stainton, Concise Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam, Elsevier Ltd, 2010. 183-5. Print.
Quine, Willard Van Orman. The Ways of Paradox, and Other Essays: Revised and Enlarged Edition. Harvard, Harvard University Press, 1976. Print.
Smith, Anthony David. Philosophy of Perception. Massachusetts, Cambridge, 2002. Print.
Tarski, Alfred. Introduction to Logic and to the Methodology of the Deductive Sciences. 4th ed., New York, Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.
