Do We See the Things Themselves?
Although Merleau-Ponty did not leave us a discursive argument proving that in perception we “reach” the things themselves, he did leave many indications as to how such an argument could be made. Our objective is to take up these indications, in order to develop such an argument, and finally to corroborate the conclusions of the argument with evidence from contemporary research on the psychology of perception.
KeywordsRetinal Image External Observer South African Journal Inverted Position Transcendental Idealism
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Berkeley, G. 1960. A New Theory of Vision. London: J. M. Dent and Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
- Butterworth, G. E. and Cochran, E. 1980. “Toward a mechanism of joint visual attention inGoogle Scholar
- human infancy,“ International Journal of Behavioral Development 3, pp. 253–262. Merleau-Ponty, M. 1962. Phenomenology of Perception. Tr. C. Smith. London: Routledge andGoogle Scholar
- Kegan Simone Ltd.Google Scholar
- Merleau-Ponty, M. 1964. The Primacy of Perception. Ed. J. M. Edie. Evanston: Northwestern UP.Google Scholar
- Merleau-Ponty, M. I964(b). Signs. Tr. R. C. McCleary. Evanston, III: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
- Merleau-Ponty, M. 1973. The Prose of the World. Trans. J. O’Neill. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
- Merleau-Ponty, M. 1968. The Visible and the Invisible. Trans. A. Lingis. Evanston, III: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
- Rock, I. 1957. “The Effect of Retinal and Phenomenal Orientation on the Perception of Form”, The American Journal of Psychology. LXX, 4: 493–511.Google Scholar
- Wait, E. C. 1995. “A Phenomenological Rejection of the Empiricist Argument from Illusions”, The South African Journal of Philosophy 14: 3 (May), pp. 83–89.Google Scholar
- Wait, E. C. 1997. “Dissipating Illusions”, Human Studies 20: 2 (April), pp. 221–242.Google Scholar
- Wait, E. C. 1998. “A Phenomenological Counter to Berkeley’s Water Experiment”, The South African Journal of Philosophy, 17: 2 (May), pp. 104–111.Google Scholar