Naive and representative realism

[Hegemonicretribution]

Could someone please briefly clarify for me the differences between different sorts of realism.

I was aware that Representative realsim involved the veil of perception, and was comfortable with realism, but then I came across naive realism and gota bit lost.

[RedAnarchist]

I assume that naive realism is when someone accepts that something is real because it exists, without knowing how or why it exists. I may be completely wrong of course.

[Essential Insignificance]

Could someone please briefly clarify for me the differences between different sorts of realism.

I was aware that Representative realsim involved the veil of perception, and was comfortable with realism, but then I came across naive realism and gota bit lost.

I shall concisely try to wrap the foundation of the premises briefly; as you asked.

Representational realism is a theory of perception that presupposes that "objects" we perceive in reality exist but that what we directly perceive are "representations" of the objects rather then objects themselves.

However,

A naive realist is someone whom has contention that we perceive objects directly, that it to say, someone whom claims that the instantaneous objects of perception such as chairs, tables, cars, etc, are without any time interval.

For the naive realist there is absolutely no question if objects exist or not because for them, they are the immediate objects of perception.

The principle "naive" is is added because such a sentiment of thought seems to indicate no "awareness" of a "distinction" between appearances and reality or of the tribulations masqueraded by this division.

So if the objects of perception are different; for the naive realist this means that the objects perceived are different objects. Which presents a "major" problem for the naive realist…if I were to move around an object and view it form diverse angels, the appearance changes but the object does not itself.

I hope that’s been a small help. :D

[RedAnarchist]

Much better than my answer, EI, well done

[Hegemonicretribution]

Thanks that is exactly what I needed :) I am quite new to epistemology in general, so I still have a lot of questions. I like the fact that reading assumes certain knowledge, but there are problems too. Again thanks.

[Wenty]

Thanks that is exactly what I needed I am quite new to epistemology in general

This isn't epistemology though its metaphysics.

Look into Berkeley for more on whats been raised.

[Essential Insignificance]

This isn't epistemology though its metaphysics.

Look into Berkeley for more on whats been raised.

How not, is perception not in the "forum" of epistemology… epistemology main focus question is with, what knowledge is, the differing variants of knowledge and how we come to "acquire" such knowledge, as we do.

Even Hume who said that "any works of metaphysic should be throw to the fire"…never meant, of course, his own works on empiricism -empirical observation- as the source of the our knowledge.

I would recommend that one who is taking a firm curiosity in perception should look into the works of the "English Empiricist" Locke, Berkeley and Hume.

Berkley idealism is very fascinating to say the least…while Hume’s scepticism will wake, whoms paying close attention, from their "dogmatic slumber"- Kant.

[Wenty]

How not, is perception not in the "forum" of epistemology… epistemology main focus question is with, what knowledge is, the differing variants of knowledge and how we come to "acquire" such knowledge, as we do.

Read the above posts they are quite obviously to do with the nature of reality not knowledge.

[Essential Insignificance]

Read the above posts they are quite obviously to do with the nature of reality not knowledge.

Reality and knowledge are correlated resolutely…one constitutes the other. The perception of reality leads to knowledge.

Even if that is your understanding…why not then; does reality not belong to the study of epistemology then metaphysics.

[Wenty]

I'm going by the definitions of the words.

[Essential Insignificance]

I'm going by the definitions of the words.

From a dictionary. :lol:

[Hegemonicretribution]

I took perceptions of reality to be a basis of knowledge. Knowledge of that which is not real is wasted no? Oh I don't know.

[Wenty]

I took perceptions of reality to be a basis of knowledge

Not sure it is a basis. Anyway, it doesn't matter even if it is. The topic is fundamentally about the nature of reality, i.e. metaphysics.

[Trissy]

Does it really matter? Fields in philosophy overlap all the time.

Epistemology is of course linked to metaphysics and vice versa. We could not have phenomenological ontology if we didn't have phenomenology and ontology, and we couldn't have phenomenology and ontology if we didn't have metaphysics, and we couldn't have metaphysics if we didn't have epistemology, etc, etc.

Why don't you just call it epsitemological metaphysics (or metaphysical epistemology) and be done with it?