Berkeley’s Theory of Perception: Searle Versus Pappas

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
S. Sreenish
{"title":"Berkeley’s Theory of Perception: Searle Versus Pappas","authors":"S. Sreenish","doi":"10.1007/s40961-024-00334-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In <i>Seeing Things as They Are</i> (Searle 2015), Searle developed a direct realist’s theory of perception. According to direct realism, physical objects are directly and immediately perceived. Searle claims that Berkeley’s theory of perception goes against direct realism. For Searle, Berkeley’s theory suggests that only subjective experiences (ideas) are directly and immediately perceived, not physical objects. Contrary to Searle, G. S. Pappas claims that Berkeley’s theory of perception is consistent with the view that physical objects are immediately perceivable (Pappas 1982; Pappas 1987). Given the conflicting interpretations of Berkeley’s theory of perception, this paper attempts to defend Searle’s position on Berkeley’s theory of perception. It refutes Pappas’ interpretation by arguing that he is inconsistent with Berkeley’s theses of ontological phenomenalism and heterogeneity thesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":41227,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research","volume":"5 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40961-024-00334-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In Seeing Things as They Are (Searle 2015), Searle developed a direct realist’s theory of perception. According to direct realism, physical objects are directly and immediately perceived. Searle claims that Berkeley’s theory of perception goes against direct realism. For Searle, Berkeley’s theory suggests that only subjective experiences (ideas) are directly and immediately perceived, not physical objects. Contrary to Searle, G. S. Pappas claims that Berkeley’s theory of perception is consistent with the view that physical objects are immediately perceivable (Pappas 1982; Pappas 1987). Given the conflicting interpretations of Berkeley’s theory of perception, this paper attempts to defend Searle’s position on Berkeley’s theory of perception. It refutes Pappas’ interpretation by arguing that he is inconsistent with Berkeley’s theses of ontological phenomenalism and heterogeneity thesis.

伯克利的知觉理论:塞尔与帕帕斯
在《看见事物的本来面目》(Searle 2015)一书中,塞尔提出了直接现实主义的感知理论。根据直接现实主义,物理对象是直接和立即被感知的。塞尔声称,伯克利的知觉理论与直接现实主义背道而驰。在塞尔看来,伯克利的理论表明,只有主观经验(观念)才能被直接和立即感知,而不是物理对象。与塞尔相反,帕帕斯(G. S. Pappas)认为伯克利的知觉理论与物理对象可立即被感知的观点是一致的(帕帕斯,1982 年;帕帕斯,1987 年)。鉴于对伯克利知觉理论的解释相互冲突,本文试图捍卫塞尔对伯克利知觉理论的立场。本文驳斥了帕帕斯的解释,认为他与伯克利的本体论现象论和异质性论不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
16
期刊介绍: The Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research encourages discussions and debates on the philosophical traditions of India and contemporary philosophy in India while simultaneously continuing its dialogue with the vast wealth of mainstream and alternative Anglo-American and Continental philosophies. Yet, the special place it reserves for philosophical expatiations emanating from the subcontinent happens to be its particular area of interest. Research and interpretations pertaining to pre-modern and modern Indian textual sources across the spectrum, viewed through an innovative lens, are highly welcome. The journal is committed to dissemination of valuable knowledge to discerning readership across the world. JICPR uncompromisingly emphasises originality of thought and research in the varied philosophical traditions. It also welcomes interdisciplinary engagements with quintessential philosophical questions. From close examination of singular philosophical texts and philosophers through furnishing detailed annotated translations and/or re-readings of extant philosophical conundrums, the journal underscores comprehensiveness of argument and ingenuity of scholarship.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信