The problem with Reid's direct realism

Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209):457-477 (2002)
Abstract
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)
Options
 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: 12,068
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
Phillip D. Cummins (1974). Reid's Realism. Journal of the History of Philosophy 12 (3):317-340.

View all 7 references

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

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2009-01-28

Total downloads

33 ( #56,576 of 1,101,813 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

4 ( #91,766 of 1,101,813 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


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