PHILOSOPHY - Epistemology: Paradoxes of Perception #1 (Argument from Illusion) [HD]

Summary

In this philosophical discourse, Eugen Fischer explores the paradoxes of perception through 'arguments from illusion.' He examines how non-veridical perceptions, like an elliptical coin or a bent straw in water, suggest a disconnect between our sensory experiences and the physical world. Fischer discusses David Hume's conclusion that we only perceive mental images, not the actual physical objects, leading to the 'veil of perception' problem. The lecture challenges our intuitive understanding of perception, questioning whether we can directly perceive the external world or are confined to our subjective sense-data.

Takeaways

• 🔍 The lecture discusses philosophical paradoxes about perception, known as 'arguments from illusion', which involve cases where perception does not accurately represent reality.
• 👀 Examples of non-veridical perception include a round coin appearing elliptical when viewed sideways or a straw appearing bent when submerged in water.
• 🤔 The paradox suggests that our perceptions are separated from physical objects by a 'veil of experience', implying we might not directly perceive the true nature of objects.
• 🏡 David Hume's reflection on perception argues that since the perceived size of a table changes with distance, we cannot be directly aware of the unchanging physical table.
• 🧠 Hume concludes that we are only aware of a mental image of the table, not the physical table itself, suggesting our awareness is limited to internal representations.
• 🔎 The argument from illusion involves two steps: first, eliciting 'phenomenal judgments' about non-veridical perception, and second, determining the nature of what we are aware of (e.g., sense-data).
• 🤚 The distinction between directly perceiving a sense-datum and indirectly perceiving a physical object is highlighted, with the former being the immediate object of awareness.
• 🔄 The lecture points out that sense-data are subjective and change with the observer's perspective, unlike physical objects which are objective and stable.
• 👁️‍🗨️ Philosophers argue that if we cannot distinguish between the subjective quality of veridical and non-veridical perceptions, we might be directly aware of sense-data in all cases.
• 🌐 The 'problem of perception' arises from the conclusion that we might not directly perceive physical objects, challenging our common-sense understanding of how we perceive the world around us.

Q & A

What is the main topic discussed in the video by Eugen Fischer?

The main topic discussed is the philosophical paradoxes about perception, specifically focusing on 'arguments from illusion' which question the nature of our direct awareness of physical objects.

What is meant by 'non-veridical perception' as mentioned in the script?

Non-veridical perception refers to situations where our senses are deceived, and things appear different from how they actually are, such as a round coin appearing elliptical when viewed from the side.

How does the phenomenon of refraction illustrate the argument from illusion?

Refraction illustrates the argument by showing that a straight straw appears bent when partially immersed in water, suggesting that our perception does not directly reveal the true physical state of objects.

What conclusion did David Hume draw from observing that a table appears smaller as one moves away from it?

Hume concluded that since the table's perceived size changes while the actual table remains unchanged, we cannot be directly aware of the real table and must be aware of a mental image instead.

What is the 'phenomenal judgment' as it relates to the perception of a round coin appearing elliptical?

The 'phenomenal judgment' is the acknowledgment that one is aware of an elliptical, golden patch when looking at a round coin from the side, without making any judgments about the physical object's actual shape.

What is the term used to describe the mental representation of the perceived object, such as the elliptical patch seen instead of a round coin?

The term used is 'sense-datum,' which refers to the immediate object of perception that is subjective and mental, as opposed to the physical object itself.

Why does the argument from illusion suggest that we cannot be aware of the coin itself when it appears elliptical?

The argument suggests this because the sense-datum (the elliptical patch) and the physical object (the round coin) are radically different, and our awareness of them constitutes different experiences.

How does the argument from illusion generalize from non-veridical perception to all cases of perception?

It generalizes by asserting that since our awareness of sense-data is subjective and ever-changing, and these are the only things we are directly aware of, this must be true for all perception, not just non-veridical cases.

What is the 'veil of subjective sense-data' mentioned in the script?

The 'veil of subjective sense-data' is the idea that our direct perception is always of subjective experiences, preventing us from directly perceiving the stable, physical objects in our environment.

What is the 'problem of perception' as it arises from the argument from illusion?

The 'problem of perception' is the challenge of how we can perceive physical objects directly if our senses often deceive us, leading to the conclusion that we are only ever aware of subjective sense-data.

How does the script address the conflict between the argument from illusion and common sense perceptions?

The script presents the argument from illusion as a philosophical challenge to common sense perceptions, highlighting the discrepancy between what we intuitively believe we perceive and what the argument suggests we actually perceive.