I think what you're talking about is direct realism, to which no great philosopher, as far as I know, truly adheres to. For example: Locke is a representationalist; Berkley is a phenomenologist; etc- no wise person is a direct realist for exactly the reasons you've proposed. The whole of empiricism isn't direct realism, however. I think what you're taling about is obtaining knowledge a posteriori vs. a priori; in which case you should read about Hume's 'ideas' and 'impressions.'
Nope. But thanks for a summary of an aspect of the history of philosophy.
Hume discounted all knowledge which was outside empirical observation, analytics and mathematics, which is self-refuting due to the fact that his statement falls outside those categories.
He was a bright man with no certain answers resting on a self-stultifying presupposition.
I think what you're talking about is direct realism, to which no great philosopher, as far as I know, truly adheres to. For example: Locke is a representationalist; Berkley is a phenomenologist; etc- no wise person is a direct realist for exactly the reasons you've proposed. The whole of empiricism isn't direct realism, however. I think what you're taling about is obtaining knowledge a posteriori vs. a priori; in which case you should read about Hume's 'ideas' and 'impressions.'
christopherwistopher 3 years ago
CW
Nope. But thanks for a summary of an aspect of the history of philosophy.
Hume discounted all knowledge which was outside empirical observation, analytics and mathematics, which is self-refuting due to the fact that his statement falls outside those categories.
He was a bright man with no certain answers resting on a self-stultifying presupposition.
Goddoesexist 3 years ago