The time-gap argument

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 47 (3):263-272 (1969)
Abstract
I argue that the time-gap argument poses no objection to Direct Realism. In the case of exploded stars many light years from us, what we see is no longer the star, but its light. I argue that in all cases of seeing we see light, but only when physical objects exist at the time of our seeing do we see them.
Keywords Epistemology  Object  Perception
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1080/00048406912341271
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
Edit this record
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Mark as duplicate
Request removal from index
Revision history
Download options
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 30,727
Through your library
References found in this work BETA
Sense and Sensibilia.J. L. Austin - 1962 - Oxford University Press.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles
Filling a Typical Gap in a Regress Argument.Jan Willem Wieland - 2011 - Logique and Analyse 54 (216):589-–597.
Perception and the Time-Gap Argument.W. A. Suchting - 1969 - Philosophical Quarterly 19 (January):46-56.
The Epistemic/Ontic Divide.Barbara Montero - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):404 - 418.
Perceiving External Things and the Time-Lag Argument.Sean Enda Power - 2013 - European Journal of Philosophy 21 (1):94-117.
The Time-Gap Argument.A. Olding - 1978 - Metaphilosophy 9 (January):44-57.
Time-Gap Myopia.L. S. Carrier - 1972 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):55-57.
Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total downloads
48 ( #112,568 of 2,197,333 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #299,047 of 2,197,333 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Monthly downloads
My notes
Sign in to use this feature