Realism: Direct or Indirect?

In our quest to discover the nature of reality, it is imperative to determine whether reality exists, in the sense that it is external and independent of our perceptions of it. While this is the common sense view, some would argue that this is not the case. These philosophers instead claim that reality is actually mind dependent, and is contingent upon our understanding of it. This school of thought is known as idealism, and shall be covered in a future post.

Instead, this post will cover the school of thought known as realism, which argues that an external reality exists and is mind independent. However, two distinct schools of thought have produced a schism within this branch of philosophy, these being direct and indirect realism. While both argue that reality is mind-independent, they differ in how we perceive reality. The differences shall be outlined below.

                                                        Direct Realism

Direct realism (also known as "naïve" realism) argues that reality, as we perceive it, is the true reality. In other words, when we perceive reality, we perceive it directly for how it actually is. When one looks at a wall, the properties of the wall exist in the external world, and they are directly proportionate to the actual world, because they are the same properties of the actual world. This theory is also known as naïve realism, because it is the common sense view that most individuals possess. When perceiving the world, one instinctively assumes that they are perceiving the world directly.

While this may be the case, problems emerge with this theory. On a daily basis, we receive sensory stimuli that are not proportionate to the actual perceived object. These are what are known as illusions. A notable example is of placing a stick inside of a pool of water. When the stick enters the water, it appears bent to the perceiver; however, when removed from the water, the stick appears straight. If direct realism is correct, then it would be assumed that the stick is actually being bent in the water, though this is not really the case.

                                                    Indirect Realism

In contrast, indirect realism (also known as "representational" realism) argues that we do not perceive reality directly. Instead, objects in the external world exhibit specific properties that are converted through our sense organs through an intermediary known as "sense data." This sense date is a configuration of our minds that allows us to create a "virtual reality" or "copy" of the external world. It is this copy that we perceive, not the true external world around us.

It is this position that modern scientists take in our understanding of perception. Indeed, science has demonstrated that perception takes place through properties (such as light and audio waves) that are detected by our sense organs and configured into electrical impulses, which allows our brains to perceive the detected stimuli. Nevertheless, problems also emerge with this theory. If this theory is indeed true, then the reality which we perceive is merely a veil for the true reality that exists external to us. Therefore, we are locked inside of our own minds, and cannot understand reality as it exists externally. As such, we have no way of knowing if our external reality is truly proportionate to the external world. Indeed, there is scientific evidence to indicate that it is not. For example, color is emitted by light wavelengths which reach the eyes and are converted into electrical signals through the optic nerves. The occipital lobe (the visual processing center of the brain) then uses these signals to perceive the sense data, and converts the wavelengths into the perception of color. This means that color, as we perceive it, does not exist. Instead, what we perceive is the illusionary byproduct of our brain attempting to perceive our external reality, further lending support to indirect realism.

                                                          Analysis

                                                    (John Locke; 15th century empiricist)

From the scientific standpoint, it appears that indirect realism does indeed present as a more credible theory to the nature of reality. Our perception of reality is contingent upon external factors, such as light and sound waves, that are converted by our sense organs into electrical impulses, which serve as a form of sense data to allow the organism to perceive the world. Nevertheless, the external objects themselves exist, unless idealism is correct. Though the objects themselves exist, certain properties do not exist in the external world as we understand them. This is important to understanding indirect realism. To provide an example, let us briefly examine the philosophy of John Locke.

John Locke was a fifteenth century philosopher who is widely known for his empiricist position. Empiricism is a school of thought that argues that knowledge can only be gathered through sense experience. It is in direct contrast to its rivaling school known as rationalism, which argues that knowledge is acquired through logical reasoning. In his philosophy, Locke argued that the human mind at birth is tabula rasa (a blank slate), and our knowledge is imprinted on our mind later through sense perception and life experience. Locke compares this process to a painter creating a picture on a white canvas. Furthermore, the perceptions of the external world are said to be based on two properties, known as primary and secondary qualities. Primary qualities are the aspects of an object that exist in the external world. They are independent of our perceptions, and purely belong to the object in question. Examples include height, width, depth, weight and mass. In contrast, secondary qualities are aspects that are contingent upon experiences in our mind. They do not exist in the objects themselves, but rather as ideas in the mind that lead to their perception. Examples include taste, texture, color, scent, and sound.

While Locke was not incorrect in his analysis of an objects properties, his analysis is incomplete. Based on scientific understanding of perception, I propose that secondary qualities do in fact exist externally. However, they do not exist in the way we perceive them. For example, the redness of an apple is a secondary quality of that apple. The redness exists only in the mind in the sense of how it is perceived. However, it is not a purely mental faculty, as the prospects that lead to the creation of a red perception already exist within the apple. The wavelengths of light within the apple are present in the external world. However, that does not make the apple itself red. It simply exhibits a property that when perceived by an observer is perceived by the observer as red. The object itself exhibits properties that produce red, but the red itself exists only in the mind. If correct, then realism still holds credibility over idealism. However, the evidence presented points in favor to the soundness of indirect realism. Thus, this piece will conclude that perception takes on an indirect realist nature. What is problematic to this conclusion is in our uncertainty of the properties of the external world. We cannot guarantee that our perceptions are not merely ideas conceptualized by the mind. Therefore, explanations are needed as to how indirect realism holds to be a superior position to idealism, which again, proposes that reality is mind dependent, and contingent upon our mental properties. The position of idealism, and its comparison to realism, shall be covered in the next upcoming post.