David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
European Journal of Philosophy 21 (1):94-117 (2013)
: We seem to directly perceive external things. But can we? According to the time-lag argument, we cannot. What we directly perceive happens now. There is a time-lag between our perceptions and the external things we seem to directly perceive; these external things happen in the past; thus, what we directly perceive must be something else, for example, sense-data, and we can only at best indirectly perceive other things. This paper examines the time-lag argument given contemporary metaphysics. I argue that this argument is not as compelling as it may initially seem. First, it denies that what we directly perceive can ever be what it seems to be; second, it conflicts with the current physical conception of time, relativity theory. This latter point leads to a more general one: the argument's force depends on a particular metaphysical conception on time, presentism, which is controversial in contemporary metaphysics of time. Given the alternative conception, eternalism, the argument is much less compelling. The overall argument of this paper, then, is that, if one wishes to hold that we directly perceive external things, we should subscribe to the latter view of time, i.e., eternalism
|Keywords||naive theories of perception time-lag direct perception|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
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
Theodore Sider (2001). Four Dimensionalism: An Ontology of Persistence and Time. Oxford University Press.
J. L. Austin (1962). Sense and Sensibilia. Oxford University Press.
Fred Dretske (1969). Seeing And Knowing. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Sean Enda Power (2015). Perceiving Multiple Locations in Time: A Phenomenological Defence of Tenseless Theory. Topoi 34 (1):249-255.
Similar books and articles
Virgil C. Aldrich (1975). Picturing, Seeing and the Time-Lag Argument. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 4 (3):535 - 547.
Moltke S. Gram (1983). Direct Realism: A Study Of Perception. Boston: Nijhoff.
Sean Enda Power (2012). The Metaphysics of the 'Specious' Present. Erkenntnis 77 (1):121-132.
George Pitcher (1971). A Theory Of Perception. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Susanna Siegel (2006). Direct Realism and Perceptual Consciousness. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 73 (2):378-410.
Stephen David Ross (2010). Re-Membering. International Studies in Philosophy Monograph Series:43-59.
Richard G. Henson (1967). Ordinary Language, Common Sense, and the Time-Lag Argument. Mind 76 (301):21-33.
Ronald W. Houts (1980). Some Implications of the Time-Lag Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 41 (1/2):150-157.
Gerald E. Myers (1957). Perception and the 'Time-Lag' Argument. Analysis 17 (April):97-102.
Added to index2010-08-20
Total downloads92 ( #44,429 of 1,796,357 )
Recent downloads (6 months)9 ( #84,894 of 1,796,357 )
How can I increase my downloads?