I am considering primarily the traditional five senses: touch, taste, smell, hearing, and seeing. Each sense is associated with their appropriate organ: hands, tongue, nose, ears, and eyes. From a scientific point-of-view, each organ is part of their appropriate sensory system consisting of various neural networks, beginning at the appendages and terminating in various parts of the brain.
The traditional philosophical topic that focuses on the philosophy of perception is glossed as “The Problem of Perception.” This is a topic that cuts across various branches of the subject such as philosophy of mind, epistemology (theory of knowledge) and metaphysics (theory of existence). According to A. D. Smith, in “The Problem of Perception” (2002), the Problem “is the question whether we can ever directly perceive the physical world. The issue is a ‘problem’ because of certain arguments that have been put forward to the effect that such direct perception is impossible.” The position in favor of direct perception of the physical world is known as “Direct Realism.” The positions opposing Direct Realism are known as “Indirect Realism” and “Idealism.”
In order to understand the “Problem” (the problem of perception) it would be helpful, I believe, to attempt a preliminary analysis of the notions of “directness” and “indirectness” employed in the Problem’s formulation. I presume these notions are functioning in an ordinary or pre-theoretic way, and are being used transitively.
Using the analogy of a path or route between two points, A and B, we may say that the path between A and B is “direct” if there are no intervening points, say C, D, etc., in the chain connecting A and B. This is similar to the Euclidian notion that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. But we must add: “A continuous straight line” for if C and D are collinear with A and B, the line between A and B will be straight but, we suppose, discontinuous. Thus “directness” here implies shortest distance in both space and time. However, a longer distance may take a shorter time, depending on the nature of the rest points. In any case, a “direct” path is one with no intervening points and an “indirect” path otherwise. Yet this analogy breaks down, insofar as an “indirect” path, say, A, C, D, B is a chain of direct paths and terminates at B. But for the Indirect Realist or Idealist, the step from D to B would be invalid. Indirectness is pervasive. B, the physical object is never reached. It may function, perhaps, as a kind of limit point in mathematics: no matter how close you get to B, there is always another point closer in the process of convergence.
Indeed, for the Indirect Realist, the subject, or perceiver, say, A, is never in “direct” contact with a physical object, say B. Such contact is said to be impossible; in every perceptual situation, there is an intervening element, say, C, which blocks any “directness” of A with respect to B. Synonyms sometimes used for “directness” and “indirectness” are the words “immediate” and “mediate.” In this sense, we may say, that for the Indirect Realist, as well as the Idealist, A’s perception, or conjectured perception of B, is always mediated by some other element, say C, and there is never an immediate perception of B with respect to any perceiver.
Yet sticking with our analysis of “directness” there is another analogy that may be helpful in our attempt to comprehend the notion, and that analogy arises in the context of communication. Consider the case when the subject, A, wants to deliver a message, verbally or orally, directly, person to person, to some recipient, say B. In this case we say that A desires to convey the message “directly” to B. Yet when A knocks on B’s door, A is greeted by C, B’s assistant. Informed that B is indisposed, C will deliver the message to B. This increases the uncertainty and chances for distortion in the message. A’s message to B must first go to C. That is, A’s message would only reach B “indirectly.” Now assume that B has many assistants, in fact a denumerable infinite number, and the message must be transferred to each one, a day apart, before reaching B. In this case, the message will never reach its intended recipient. The message is lost in an infinite maze of indirectness.
Be that as it may, we will gain no further insight into the “Problem” — that is the philosophical problem of perception, unless we further examine the entire complex of notions that interact and form the somewhat amorphous maze that somehow delimits the so-called “Problem.” Thus some of the additional notions that are relevant are “perception,” “sensation,” “physical world,” “consciousness,” “sense data,” “Idealism,” “Realism” and so on. Considering the fact that millions of words have been written about such notions over many centuries by a very large number of people, the task of revisiting the matter is somewhat daunting and exasperating. The task is something like rediscovering the wheel. Yet I would think that if there is such a discipline as philosophy, the rediscovery and recapitulation of what has been claimed by past and present thinkers is part of the discipline of becoming a philosopher or of partaking in the discipline. Thus I will continue this discussion with the attempt to achieve some clarity with respect to the notions of “Realism” and “Idealism” and the compound phrases such as “Indirect” and “Direct” Realism.
The “ism” of “Realism” is difficult to pin down, perhaps because it is one of those abstract overused philosophical words up for grabs to anyone inclined to use it. It is an expression qualifying art, literature, and even magic. It some contexts it is a word that admits of degrees, as in the fantastic “ontological proof” of the most supreme real being. A good example of this intensive use of “realism” or “reality” in discussed in the chapter, “Being More Real” in the late Robert Nozick’s book, “The Examined Life.” In this context some people are said to be “more real” than others, depending on the intensity and scope of their lives. “Reality is a general notion that encompasses value, beauty, vividness, focus, integration.”
However, the “Realism” in the context of the phrase “Direct Realism” is not meant to encompass such grand evaluative senses or connotations of the term. In philosophy in general one says you are a “Realist” about any domain of individuals insofar as such individuals are allowed as values of the variables in your system. Thus one may be a “Realist” over just about anything: universals, abstract entities, atoms, speech acts, sensations, things, ideas, facts, states of affairs, etc., as long as they function properly in your existential statements. This entails an “ontological relativity” in that the ontology is relative to a given language system. In a sense, “reality” is relative to the language spoken. Nevertheless, the term has many variations in philosophy itself, such as “Naive Realism,” “Neorealism,” “Critical Realism,” “Moderate Realism,” “Internal Realism,” “Realism” with a capital “R” and “realism” with a small “r” as well as “Platonic Realism.” We are all “Naïve Realists” in the beginning.
Puzzle
Can you find the smallest number greater than one billion that has exactly 1000 divisors?
Answer to last week’s puzzle
There were a total of 900 people who went to the picnic.
