The problem with Reid's direct realism

Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):457-477 (2002)
There is a problem about the compatibility of Reid's commitment to both a sign theory of sensations and also direct realism. I show that Reid is committed to three different senses of the claim that mind independent bodies and their qualities are among the immediate objects of perception, and I then argue that Reid's sign theory conflicts with one of these. I conclude by advocating one proposal for reconciling Reid's claims, deferring a thorough development and defence of the proposal to another paper.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1111/1467-9213.00280
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
Download options
PhilPapers Archive

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 15,831
External links
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

View all 8 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Jake Quilty-Dunn (2013). Was Reid a Direct Realist? British Journal for the History of Philosophy 21 (2):302 - 323.
Walter Horn (2010). Reid and Hall on Perceptual Relativity and Error. Journal of Scottish Philosophy 8 (2):115-145.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Monthly downloads

Added to index


Total downloads

46 ( #72,699 of 1,724,889 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

7 ( #93,212 of 1,724,889 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature

Start a new thread
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.