Advertisement

Topoi

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 247–271 | Cite as

Elusive Objects

  • M. G. F. Martin
Article

Abstract

Do we directly perceive physical objects? What is the significance of the qualification ‘directly’ here? Austin famously denied that there was a unique interpretation by which we could make sense of the traditional debate in the philosophy of perception. I look here at Thompson Clarke’s discussion of G. E. Moore and surface perception to answer Austin’s scepticism.

Keywords

Perception Direct perception Direct realism Indirect realism Sense experience Sense perception G. E. Moore Thompson Clarke Frank Jackson Representationalism Surface perception 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper derives from a series of talks over the years about Thompson Clarke’s discussion of surface seeing, and lectures on perception in Berkeley, Milan and Barcelona. In particular, versions of part of this material were presented at conferences in Paris, Dublin, and in Bordeaux at an occasion in honour of Clarke. I’m grateful to the audiences of these presentations for their questions. And in particular to John Campbell, Hannah Ginsborg, Véronique Munoz-Dardé, Sven Rosenkranz, Marco Santambrogio, Paul Snowdon, Barry Stroud and Charles Travis for comments and questions. Thanks are also due to the patience of the editors, and useful comments and corrections from anonymous referees.

References

  1. Anscombe GEM (1965) The intentionality of sensation: a grammatical feature. In: Butler R (ed) Analytic philosophy, second series. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 158–180Google Scholar
  2. Armstrong DM (1968) A materialist theory of the mind. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Austin JL (1962) Sense and sensibilia. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouwsma OK (1942) Moore’s theory of sense-data. In: Schillp PA (ed) Philosophy of GE Moore. Open Court, La Salle, pp 201–222Google Scholar
  5. Burge T (2010) Origins of objectivity. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chisholm R (1957) Perceiving. Cornell University Press, IthacaGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke T (1965) Seeing surfaces and physical objects. In: Black M (ed) Philosophy in America. George Allen, London, pp 98–114Google Scholar
  8. Clarke T (1972) The legacy of skepticism. J Philos 69(20):754–769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davidson D (1985) Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Davies M (1992) Perceptual content and local supervenience. Proc Aristot Soc XCII:21–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dennett DC (1991) Consciousness explained. Little, Brown, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodman N (1977) The structure of appearance, 3rd edn. Reidel, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jackson F (1977) Perception: a representative theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnston M (2004) The obscure object of hallucination. Philos Stud 120:113–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McGinn C (1982) The character of mind. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. McLaughlin B (1984) Perception, causation and supervenience. Midwest Stud Philos IX:569–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Montague M (2011) The phenomenology of particularity. In: Bayne T, Montague M (eds) Cognitive phenomenology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 121–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moore GE (1903) The refutation of idealism. Mind 12(48):433–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moore GE (1918) Some judgments of perception. Proc Aristot Soc 19:1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moore GE (1925) A defence of common sense. In: Muirhead JH (ed) Contemporary British philosophy (2nd series). George Allen & Unwin, London, pp 193–223Google Scholar
  21. Moore GE (1962) Commonplace book 1919–1953. George Allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Neta R (2007) Contextualism & a puzzle about seeing. Philos Stud 134(1):53–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Peacocke C (1983) Sense and content: experience, thought, and their relations. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  24. Price HH (1932) Perception. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Quine WO (1960) Word and object. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Russell B (1992) Theory of knowledge, The 1913 manuscript. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  27. Schellenberg S (2010) The particularity and phenomenology of perceptual experience. Philos Stud 149(1):19–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Searle JR (1983) Intentionality. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Snowdon P (1992) How to interpret “direct perception”. In: Crane T (ed) The contents of experience. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 48–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Snowdon P (2007) G. E. Moore on sense-data and perception. In: Susana N, Gary S (eds) Themes from G.E. Moore: essays in epistemology & ethics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 119–141Google Scholar
  31. Sorensen R (1999) Seeing intersecting eclipses. J Philos 96(1):25–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sorensen R (2008) Seeing dark things: the philosophy of shadows. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strawson PF (1979) Perception and its objects. In: Macdonald GF (ed) Perception and identity. Macmillan, London, pp 41–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUCLLondonUK
  2. 2.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations