Austerity and Illusion

Philosophers' Imprint 20 (15):1-19 (2020)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
Many contemporary theorists charge that naïve realists are incapable of accounting for illusions. Various sophisticated proposals have been ventured to meet this charge. Here, we take a different approach and dispute whether the naïve realist owes any distinctive account of illusion. To this end, we begin with a simple, naïve account of veridical perception. We then examine the case that this account cannot be extended to illusions. By reconstructing an explicit version of this argument, we show that it depends critically on the contention that perceptual experience is diaphanous, or more minimally and precisely, that there can be no difference in phenomenal properties between two experiences without a difference in the scenes presented in those experiences. Finding no good reason to accept this claim, we develop and defend a simple, naïve account of both veridical perception and illusion, here dubbed Simple, Austere Naïve Realism.
PhilPapers/Archive ID
FREAAI-7
Upload history
Archival date: 2020-07-15
View other versions
Added to PP index
2020-07-15

Total views
172 ( #33,471 of 2,448,854 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
59 ( #10,408 of 2,448,854 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.