I suppose representational or indirect realism would be considered more sophisticated at least since Hume and Kant.

Naive realism is what you get if you do not spend too much time considering there might be a differece between what you "experience or perceive" and what "really is".
Hence the term "naive".

Descartes and Locke were also Representational Realists.

By "naive" realism don't we normally mean what we suppose to be the attitude by the man-in-the-street to the objects of the world around him, a "natural" perspective unencumbered by philosophical positions? This seems to be the point of departure for many modern phenomenological philosophies since Heidegger, including Schultz's lebenswelt philosophy.

The term, "naive realism" is used often on this forum, usually in a disparaging way. And, I suppose that although "innocent realism" would be all right (if there were such a thing) no one wants to be naive. Realism is, of course, the view that there are external objects independent of us. But what is naive realism, and why is it naive? What would sophisticated realism be?

It is hard to believe that naive realists don't realize that people sometimes make perceptual mistakes, if that is what you mean. So, tell me, how does representational or indirect realism better than naive realism. What do they know that naive realists don't know? And how do they know it?

---------- Post added 03-02-2010 at 07:10 AM ----------



Yes they were. And so was Kant. But Thomas Reid was not. And neither was Wittgenstein (believe it or not). He thought that RR was based on the private language fallacy. The question is what are the arguments for RR, and are they good arguments? Do their premises support their conclusion?
What is the argument that we perceive only representations, and not objects of which they are the representations.

And, by the way, for those who believe there is something fishy about dualism, or the dichotomy between the subject and the object (of which a believe there are several on this forum) they should think there is something fishy about RR, since RR is a form of epistemic dualism. That was partly why it was rejected by Wittgenstein*. (Just a reminder).

*Yes, I mean the later, naive Wittgenstein.

Maybe people call it naive because they believe it's naive to actually believe in realism.

I don't think so, since those same people claim to be realists.

Do you know who coined the term? It may have been coined by an opponent of the theory similar to the Big Bag Theory being coined by an opponent and the proponents then eventually stuck by the name.

It must have been coined by an opponent, since "naive" is not a compliment. I don't think that those who are called "naive realists" by their opponents think of themselves as naive. I don't know the origins of the term.

Another theory is that "naive" meant something else when it was coined. Perhaps it did not have negative connotations back when it was coined.

"Properly speaking, naive realism is supposed to be the view of the 'naive' (that is, not philosophically trained) common sense. But common sense has no systemically developed view, so that when naive realism is held as a philosophical theory and defended against objections it is often, and probably should be, called direct realism."

Naive Realism

The term, "naive realism" is used often on this forum, usually in a disparaging way. And, I suppose that although "innocent realism" would be all right (if there were such a thing) no one wants to be naive. Realism is, of course, the view that there are external objects independent of us. But what is naive realism, and why is it naive? What would sophisticated realism be?

The "naive" in "naive realism" isn't supposed to be taken as insulting. It merely highlights the assertion that secondary qualities like color are properties of the objects they belong to and not of our internal mental states. A better term would probably be "direct realism".

In the view of direct realism, apples are a certain color and anyone that sees a different color is "wrong". In the view of indirect realism, apples have no color per se. They simply reflect/absorb different wavelengths of light differently and our brains interpret these wavelengths into various colors based on context.

The evidence for indirect realism is overwhelming, I think. My favorite optical illusion is attached below.

Sqaures A and B are the exact same shade of gray. The only reason why your brain represents them differently to your consciousness is because of the fake shadow that's been drawn. This provides context that tells your brain "if this were a real scene, those would be different colors".

The fact that color depends on context is strong evidence that color is in our heads and not out there in the world. If you agree then you're an indirect realist.

Sqaures A and B are the exact same shade of gray. The only reason why your brain represents them differently to your consciousness is because of the fake shadow that's been drawn. This provides context that tells your brain "if this were a real scene, those would be different colors".

The fact that color depends on context is strong evidence that color is in our heads and not out there in the world. If you agree then you're an indirect realist.