Direct vs Indirect Realism (Philosophy of Perception)

Join George and John as they discuss and debate different philosophical ideas, today they are looking into the Philosophy of perception and assessing Direct and Indirect Realism.

Philosophy of perception is questioning how we view the world, is the true reality that which we immediately perceive and what knowledge can we gain based on what we see.

Direct Realism claims that which we immediately perceive is the exact reality outside of our minds, whereas Indirect realism claims the external reality is actually different to that which we perceive and we do not in fact perceive the external world directly, what we see in our minds is not what truly exists outside of our minds.

Watch as these theories are discussed and critiqued.

Get the Philosophy of Perception eBook, available on Amazon:

Get the Philosophy Vibe Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' paperback book, available worldwide on Amazon:

0:00 - Introduction
0:51 - Direct Realism Explained
1:25 - Problems with Direct Realism
4:10 - Indirect Realism Explained
5:43 - Problems with Indirect Realism

#directrealism #indirectrealism #philosophy

[PhilosophyVibe]

Get the Philosophy of Perception eBook, available on Amazon:

Get the Philosophy Vibe Anthology Vol 2 'Metaphysics' paperback book, available worldwide on Amazon:

[ZacharyBittner]

This channel is criminally underwarched

[rocio]

Very good. I have studied David Hume and Thomas Reid in the last two months. I find direct realism far better than indirect realism with all its objections.

[DarrenMcStravick]

The indirect realist requires way more metaphysical woo than direct realism to explain epistemological problems with perception (including the idea that there are such problems with perception and not simply with how we're trained to use referential language).

Direct realism answers a LOT of the problems surrounding perception easier -- the LANGUAGE we use trains us to assume any part of our observations contain information about physical environmental entities and that the nearest approximate linguistic "seeming" that "seems" to accurately characterise our perception will be a true proposition.

Basically, we mischaracterise what we experience in illusions and hallucinations (our language trains us to assume things at the expense of misidentification) and we hastily make judgments about complex observational phenomena using language riddled with half-baked concepts that is absolutely devoid of identification procedures.

There are no problems of perception. There ARE problems with referential competence and the accuracy of perceptual BELIEFS (not perceptions themselves).

[MrQuantumInc]

Indirect realism does not require mind-body dualism! The color absolutely exists in your brain. The representation and the sense data are things that occur in the brain. The only weird assertion is that the act of perceiving is separate and distinct from the thing that is perceived. Yes that is two things to contemplate, and "dual" means 2, but that doesn't mean that the theory that the mind is non-physical is somehow involved in indirect realism. Then he goes into a line of logic that seems designed to make indirect realism look like idealism. The awful truth is that people constantly disagree about seemingly objective things and I don't see how direct realism accounts for that.

[somethingyousaid]

Great content. And you're teaching me a great deal through your videos. Even so, it's difficult to hear them.

[ulysses]

I think the most logical position to take is that we are perceiving the reality as it is but limited. Like humans can't hear the decibel of sound that dogs hear. Or the way snakes see their preys with their thermal camera-like eyes. Reality may be full of different things like this but my point is that the way evolved us enables us to interact with it in a certain limit. And that's where the subjectivity comes from. With our senses we are experiencing the reality directly and subjectively.

[Rspknlikeabssxd]

I think there is a difference (albeit slight) between non naive direct realism, and naive direct realism. Naive direct realism is supposed to be like a "hard" or "strong" direct realism, in the sense that every physical object we perceive is exactly how the material object is in reality. This view is open to all the points made in this video. A non naive direct realist will claim that we do immediately perceice the material world as it is. I think the difference is that non naive direct realists can claim things like perceptual error is possible. But, this view is problematic in itself because to distinguish between different appearences with reality (straight vs bent stick) will inevitably result in reasons being given to prefer the straight stick as the real material object. But then, if reasons are necessary, we are making an indirect realist argument. So, I can't believe direct realism is tenable.

I asked my metaphysics professor a semester ago if an indirect realist is forced to hold a dualist position. I believe he didn't think so. Or maybe it was just that a direct realist does not need to be a physicalist about the mind body problem. I feel like it makes sense to be a dualist if you are an indirect realist, however.

For the problems of these views, as well as George Berkeley's ingenious and lucid defense of idealism, I myself subscribe to an idealist world view.

Great video guys :)

[bernardwalsh]

“Aristotle was the first influential philosopher to say in regard to illusions that we must make a clear distinction between what the senses contribute and the interpretation supplied by the mind and so you know if you look at a bent stick in water a stick that's actually straight but appears bent all the sceptics across the centuries moan these are the lesser skeptics all you see our senses deceive us because it looks bent that's really straight. Aristotle says the senses do not deceive you they give you the actual evidence of the facts the senses cannot deceive you the error comes in the conclusion that you make in the theory you put forth to interpret the data in you're saying that the cause of it is that the stick actually bends in the water rather than some other explanation but don't blame the senses for your confused or erroneous intellectual interpretations”

[SwordOfApollo]

Nice video on the differences between naïve and indirect realism and some of the arguments against each. But I think you do a bit of a disservice to direct realism by treating all direct realism as naïve realism. I think you gentlemen and your subscribers would likely appreciate my essay contrasting another type of direct realism with naïve realism and indirect realism. I think that it solves the problems inherent in both. You can google: "Philosophy of Perception: Naïve Realism vs. Representationalism vs. Direct Transformative Process Realism"

[spacesciencelab]

Great video. I've been looking for this philosophy for a while as this is what I tend to believe in.

[uzairhussain]

...easy to understand through dialogue. Thanks from pakistan.

[Ruchi]

Sir, your videos are helpful to every student

[danmcconnell]

Gibson's theory of direct realism is not a naive theory, nor is it wounded by illusions or qualia.

[galefray]

What exactly is meant by "immediate awareness" within direct realism? Surely, in either case, the object being perceived creates a mental image in the mind, how is that immediate or direct?

[Beyond_Belief]

What would the direct realist say about the geometry of vision?

I get the impression your presentation skewed against direct realism. I see the railway lines appear to converge however they are clearly laid parallel to one another. Doesn't that imply that there are two geometries at play?

[yaamir]

6:57 I think you meant to say "indirect realist"

[ashokmacho]

Pls make vidoes on Moore sense data and Russell

[marinamarina]

I love your vids, keep up the great work

[peter-claveranochirim]

nice video, please keep it up. i would like if you can make a video on the synergy between logic and perception.