|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 21, 2017 14:29:39 GMT
Re perceptual content, I'm a "direct realist." It's worth noting that epistemically, there's no justification for saying that anything is an illusion unless we (a) know how it really is, but (b) know that our perception of it doesn't match how it really is (for the sorts of reasons that normally account for illusions). However, if we know this, then we completely undermine the notion that everything could be an illusion. If we don't know (a) and (b), there is no grounds for saying that anything is an illusion. So "everything is an illusion" is quite nonsensical. I can see how that is true of "everything is an illusion" but what about the stance of "everything could be an illusion"? Well, it still wouldn't make sense to talk about present mental phenomena, qua present mental phenomena, as an illusion, because what we're talking about in that case are appearances as such. The appearances can't be getting something else wrong, because there is nothing else that they're representing. However, it doesn't do anything for the logical possibility that all perceptual data are illusory. But that's all that is--a logical possibility. There's no reason beyond that to believe it. And there are contradictory logical possibilities. |
|
