@prothero,
prothero;134416 wrote: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".
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 ----------
Pythagorean;134419 wrote:Descartes and Locke were also Representational Realists.
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.