Austin concedes that it makes sense in ordinary language to speak of "direct" versus "indirect" perception
Austin concedes that it makes sense in ordinary language to speak of "direct" versus "indirect" perception
We sometimes speak of "seeing indirectly" (e.g. seeing something's reflection in the mirror) or "hearing indirectly" (e.g. through another's testimony) -- but not of "smelling indirectly" or "tasting indirectly." So "directly perceive" (where "perceive" can cover any of the five senses) doesn't make sense in ordinary speech. And those who use this phrase haven't told us in what special sense they mean it to be taken.
Austin concedes that it makes sense in ordinary language to speak of "direct" versus "indirect" perception
We sometimes speak of "seeing indirectly" (e.g. seeing something's reflection in the mirror) or "hearing indirectly" (e.g. through another's testimony) -- but not of "smelling indirectly" or "tasting indirectly." So "directly perceive" (where "perceive" can cover any of the five senses) doesn't make sense in ordinary speech. And those who use this phrase haven't told us in what special sense they mean it to be taken.
Austin concedes that it makes sense in ordinary language to speak of "direct" versus "indirect" perception
We sometimes speak of "seeing indirectly" (e.g. seeing something's reflection in the mirror) or "hearing indirectly" (e.g. through another's testimony) -- but not of "smelling indirectly" or "tasting indirectly." So "directly perceive" (where "perceive" can cover any of the five senses) doesn't make sense in ordinary speech. And those who use this phrase haven't told us in what special sense they mean it to be taken.