Advertisement

Naïve realism: a simple approach

  • Justin Christy
Article

Abstract

Naïve realism is often characterized, by its proponents and detractors alike, as the view that for a subject to undergo a perceptual experience is for her to stand in a simple two-place acquaintance relation toward an object. However, two of the leading defenders of naïve realism, John Campbell and Bill Brewer, have thought it necessary to complicate this picture, claiming that a third relatum is needed to account for various possible differences between distinct visual experiences of the same object (for example, differences that result from changes in the object’s spatial orientation relative to the subject, or from changes in the intensity with which the subject focuses her attention on the object). This, I argue, is a mistake. Once it is acknowledged that a subject’s visual experience acquaints her with more than just a single object, all of the relevant facts can be explained from within the simpler naïve realist framework.

Keywords

Perception Visual experience Naïve realism 

References

  1. Armstrong, D. M. (1968). A materialist theory of the mind. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  2. Brewer, B. (2011). Perception and its objects. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell, J. (2002). Reference and consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, J. (2009). Consciousness and reference. In B. P. McLaughlin, A. Beckermann, & S. Walter (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of philosophy of mind (pp. 648–662). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, J. (2011). Relational vs. Kantian responses to Berkeley’s puzzle. In J. Roessler, H. Lerman, & N. Eilan (Eds.), Perception, causation, and objectivity (pp. 35–50). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Campbell, J. (2016). The problem of spatiality for a relational view of experience. Philosophical Topics, 44(2), 105–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crane, T., & French, C. (2017). The problem of perception. In E. N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/perception-problem/.
  8. Dretske, F. (1999). The mind’s awareness of itself. Philosophical Studies, 95(1), 103–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fish, W. (2009). Perception, hallucination, and illusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hellie, B. (2007). Factive phenomenal characters. Philosophical Perspectives, 21, 259–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kennedy, M. (2009). Heirs of nothing: The implications of transparency. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79(3), 574–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kriegel, U. (2009). Subjective consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Logue, H. (2012). Why naïve realism? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 112(2pt2), 211–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lycan, W. (1996). Consciousness and experience. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Martin, M. G. F. (2002). The transparency of experience. Mind and Language, 4(4), 376–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Martin, M. G. F. (2004). The limits of self-awareness. Philosophical Studies, 120, 37–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McDowell, J. (1982). Criteria, defeasibility, and knowledge. Proceedings of the British Academy, 68, 455–479.Google Scholar
  18. Speaks, J. (2010). Attention and intentionalism. Philosophical Quarterly, 60(239), 325–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Notre DameNotre DameUSA

Personalised recommendations