More objections to DR LO: To understand the objections to DR based on hallucinations and the time-lag argument

‘Is this a dagger which I see before me, The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee. I have thee not, and yet I see thee still. Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible To feeling as to sight? Or art thou but A dagger of the mind, a false creation, Proceeding from the heat-oppressed brain? I see thee yet, in form as palpable As this which now I draw.’

Issue 3 - The argument from hallucination R1. When Macbeth has his hallucination of a dagger, there is something that he sees before him. R2. The thing he sees is not a physical object. C. So it must be a mental image – i.e. a sense-datum. Copy down from board. Then go through each reason and write down how it attacks DR. How does each Reason (or Premise) attack DR?

How might a DR respond to the criticism of the argument from hallucination? Discuss in pairs. Come up with at least two ways a DR might respond to the criticism presented by the argument from hallucination.

Possible DR responses….. One can identify when we are hallucinating. i.e. use other senses to determine that we are hallucinating. Deny hallucinations are really perceptions at all. i.e. we are simply imagining something which is not the same as perceiving sense-data. How could we link this to macbeth????

Question to discuss ‘The argument from hallucination offers a more devastating criticism to direct realism than the argument from illusion and perceptual variation’. How far do you agree with this statement? Explain your reason why. Task: In pairs, discuss how you would answer this question. Record your plan on your responses. Lesson 5.

Issues 4 - The time-lag argument Read pages 35 – 36 in Lacewing: The Time Lag Argument as an objection to DR. The DR response to the argument.

Time lag Argument Written Task: Outline the TL argument in standard form. **Hint use the sun as an example! Do you think the TL Argument offers a more devastating criticism to DR than the argument from perceptual variation? ‘The Time Lag Argument only falls flat if the person who is the perceiver is blind.’ How far do you agree with this statement? Do you think the defence made by DR – we cannot be aware of objects as they are now, but as they were – successfully refutes the TL argument?

Time-lag argument in standard form R1. If the sun had just winked out of existence, there would still be something that I see when I look in its direction. R2. This thing cannot be the sun, since the sun would no longer exist. C. So it must be an image of the sun – i.e. a sense datum.

Homework Do we perceive things in the world directly? (15 marks) It must be handwritten. Rough guide of length: 2 sides of A4

13 - 15 The student argues with clear and sustained intent. A complete & coherent & sufficient material is selected and deployed to answer the question fully. The conclusion is arrived at through a balancing of arguments, with appropriate weight given to each argument and to the argument overall. Where there are crucial arguments, these are distinguished from less crucial ones. There may be trivial mistakes – both relating to the content and to the logic – as long as they do not detract from the argument. 10 - 12 The student argues with intent, though this is not necessarily sustained. A complete and coherent argument to a conclusion. The content is detailed and correct and most of it is integrated. There is a recognition of arguments and counter arguments, but balance is not always present and the weight to be given to each argument is not always fully clear. 7 to 9 There is some evidence of that the student is trying to answer the question. An argument to a conclusion is set out, but not fully coherently. The content is largely correct, though there may be some gaps and lack of detail. Relevant points are recognised/identified but not integrated in a coherent way. alternative positions may be identified & juxtaposed, but not necessarily precisely and their relative weightings may not be clear.

The student argues with clear and sustained intent. 13 - 15 The student argues with clear and sustained intent. A complete & coherent & sufficient material is selected and deployed to answer the question fully. The conclusion is arrived at through a balancing of arguments, with appropriate weight given to each argument and to the argument overall. Where there are crucial arguments, these are distinguished from less crucial ones. There may be trivial mistakes – both relating to the content and to the logic – as long as they do not detract from the argument. Print off.

What to do….. Focusing on DR and the arguments against it: perceptual variation, illusion, hallucination and time lag. **Bring in Russell for perceptual variation. Emphasis on balancing of arguments – this means your writing is not presenting two sides i.e. for and against, but rather a weaving of arguments. For example a paragraph on how the argument from illusion attacks DR, but at each point how DR responds. Philosophical language used throughout. Your opinion has to be evident throughout i.e. what you’re going to argue in the conclusion has to be present in each paragraph. Quality not quantity is the focus here. Emphasise that this question Print out. Start to plan in class.