The time-gap argument

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 47 (3):263-272 (1969)

Authors
L. S. Carrier
University of Miami
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
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 47,413
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

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.
The Time-Gap Argument.A. Olding - 1978 - Metaphilosophy 9 (January):44-57.
The Epistemic/Ontic Divide.Barbara Montero - 2003 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 66 (2):404 - 418.
Perception and the Time-Gap Argument.W. A. Suchting - 1969 - Philosophical Quarterly 19 (January):46-56.
Time-Gap Myopia.L. S. Carrier - 1972 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):55-57.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
55 ( #162,578 of 2,291,812 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
5 ( #231,371 of 2,291,812 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes

Sign in to use this feature