Last video we looked at the basics of direct and indirect realism -- go check that out
if you haven't already.
However, we still haven't answered the most important question: do you ever experience
what's actually out there, or only what's in your head?
By the end of this two-parter I'll have shown you both sides of the argument, so you'll
have the knowledge to make up your mind for yourself.
First off, we need to look at the reasoning behind indirect realism.
To show this, imagine two people looking at an object -- let's take a table for example.
Person 1 will see a different-looking table to person 2, as we all know if we've ever
tried to draw something from reference.
If person 1 takes a mental snapshot of what he literally sees, it'll show a small, diamond-shaped
table where you can't see the fourth leg, whereas person 2 would see a bigger, square
table, rotated differently.
It'll even be a slightly different colour for both of them because the light won't
fall on it on the exact same way for both people.
Now say person 1 walks over to person 2.
His perspecitve is always changing, so if we take a snapshot with each step he takes,
what we're literally getting is a table that looks different each time.
This might sound weird right now, but that's just because you're used to this happening
with everything you look at.
You're used to seeing nonsense.
Here's the key part here.
Obviously, there's no table that changes shape -- but that's exactly what's being
suggested.
So, they're not seeing the actual table out there-- since there is no table that fits
what they're seeing.
And since they've got to be perceiving something, and it can't be something external, the
only thing that's left is something in our minds.
In summary, this is what indirect realism is saying:
It appears to you that there's a table that's changing shape
As a general rule, if it appears to you that something has certain properties -- here,
a table that changes shape -- then you've got to be seeing something, external or in
your mind, that has those properties So, you're aware of some sort of table that's
changing shape But obviously there's no shape-changing
table actually out there So the thing we're seeing can't be in
reality, only in our minds
Okay, now say you could prove all this stuff with the table we've described here doesn't
work.
That still isn't a problem for the indirect realist.
Let's start off with something we know has got to involve sense-data -- an illusion.
We've all had moments when we've seen something that wasn't there out of the corner
of our eyes, that's a pretty good example.
While it was going on, you couldn't tell it was an illusion, right?
In other words, while it was happening, there was no difference between the illusion, where
you were perceiving sense-data, and what happens when you see normally.
So, since we know there's no difference, no change, between something we know is sense-data
and something we're not too sure about, we must always be seeing sense-data.
This looks like a pretty solid argument -- and a slightly worrying one too.
The idea we're never seeing reality first-hand isn't a very comforting thought.
Next video we'll look at some attempts to show it's wrong, and you can decide for
yourself whether they work or not.
But for now, I'm going to leave you on that note.
Feel free to leave a comment with your opinions on all this, or if you have any questions
you'd like answering -- I'd love to see what you guys think.
See you in the next one.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét