The argument from illusion and the argument from hallucination refute the directness of visual perceptual experience. Although the first argument includes at least two disputable premises (the phenomenal principle and the common kind assumption), the second one just includes the common kind assumption. I will illustrate that the arguments, not only have different premises, but concern different subjects. The argument from illusion concerns the object of visual perceptual experience, but the argument from hallucination concerns the nature of the experience. On the basis of this consideration, I will propose the two different senses of directness. According to the first sense, an experience is direct, if it is directed to the world itself. But according to the second sense, an experience is direct, if the world itself, notably not its representation, constitutes the experience.
Attar, F. (2023). The Argument from Illusion and the Argument from Hallucination. Sophia Perennis, 20(43), 229-254. doi: 10.22034/iw.2023.391522.1684
MLA
Faraz Attar. "The Argument from Illusion and the Argument from Hallucination". Sophia Perennis, 20, 43, 2023, 229-254. doi: 10.22034/iw.2023.391522.1684
HARVARD
Attar, F. (2023). 'The Argument from Illusion and the Argument from Hallucination', Sophia Perennis, 20(43), pp. 229-254. doi: 10.22034/iw.2023.391522.1684
VANCOUVER
Attar, F. The Argument from Illusion and the Argument from Hallucination. Sophia Perennis, 2023; 20(43): 229-254. doi: 10.22034/iw.2023.391522.1684
)