Advertisement

Introspection and Primacy of Perception: A Critical Reflection on Naïve Realism

  • Sarthak GhoshEmail author
Article
  • 5 Downloads

Abstract

A fundamental issue in philosophy of perception is to understand the nature of experience and the relation of the experience with objects or states of affairs that is experienced. A prominent philosophical issue here is posed by the possibility of hallucinatory experiences, which are subjectively indistinguishable from veridical perception for the experiencer. The philosophical views in this matter can be grouped into three major positions on the basis of the nature of the subjective experience and relation of the subjective experience with the object. These are the sense-data theories—which consider that the objects of perception are mental entities; the representative theories—according to which perception is a representation of the objects in the external world; and the naïve realist theories—which proclaim that the external objects are constitutive of the very perceptual experience and not a representation of it. Naïve realism claims it is the defence of common-sense notion regarding experience i.e. how experience seems to the experiencer upon introspective reflection on it. This position has a growing number of proponents in philosophy especially in the last two decades. But it also entails radical departure of established philosophical views regarding the nature of experience, the phenomenal character of experience, and the experiencer–object relation. In this paper, we critically examine naïve realism from two crucial aspects pertaining to it—the question of introspection being basis of naïve realist thesis, and the notion of primacy of perception over non-veridical forms of experiences. We find that there are significant problems which weaken the naïve realist thesis.

Keywords

Naïve realism Problem of perception Hallucination Introspection Primacy of perception 

Notes

References

  1. Austin, J. (1962a). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Austin, J. (1962b). Sense and sensibilia. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ayer, A. (1953). The foundations of empirical knowledge. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Clark, A. (2013). Expecting the world: Perception, prediction, and the origins of human knowledge. Journal of Philosophy, 110(9), 469–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dretske, F. (1995). Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Jackson, F. (1982). Epiphenomenal qualia. Philosophical Quarterly, 32(127), 127–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jackson, F. (1986). What Mary didn’t know. Journal of Philosophy, 83(5), 291–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kveraga, K., Ghuman, A. S., & Bar, M. (2007). Top-down predictions in the cognitive brain. Brain and Cognition, 65(2), 145–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Martin, M. (2002). The transparency of experience. Mind and Language, 17(4), 376–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Martin, M. (2004). The limits of self-awareness. Philosophies Studies, 120(1/3), 37–89.Google Scholar
  11. Nagel, T. (1974). What Is it like to be a bat? The Philosophical Review, 83(4), 435–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rao, R., & Ballard, D. (1999). Predictive coding in the visual cortex: A functional interpretation of some extra-classical receptive-field effects. Nature Neuroscience, 2(1), 79–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Robinson, H. (1994). Perception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Searle, J. (2015). Seeing things as they are: A theory of perception. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Seth, A. K. (2015). Presence, objecthood, and the phenomenology of predictive perception. Cognitive Neuroscience, 6(2–3), 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Siegel, S. (2004). Indiscriminability and the phenomenal. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 120(1/3), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Soteriou, M. (2016). Disjunctivism. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ICPR 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Humanities and Social SciencesIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations