What is your answer?

The "argument from illusion" tries to show that

    { 1 } - we cannot know if we perceive an objective external world.
    { 2 } - what we directly perceive is always sense date (never material objects).
    { 3 } - we perceive mere appearances, and not what things are in themselves.
    { 4 } - material objects are logical constructs out of sensations.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Directions: Click on a number from 1 to 4.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























1 is wrong. Please try again.

The "argument from illusion" tries to show that

We might argue for this AFTER using the argument from illusion.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























2 is correct!

The "argument from illusion" tries to show that

    { 1 } - we cannot know if we perceive an objective external world.
    { 2 } - what we directly perceive is always sense date (never material objects).
    { 3 } - we perceive mere appearances, and not what things are in themselves.
    { 4 } - material objects are logical constructs out of sensations.

The argument goes:

    In illusion cases, what we directly perceive is sense data.
    In non-illusion cases, what we directly perceive is the same as what we directly perceive in illusion cases.
    So, in ALL cases what we directly perceive is sense data.

<= back | menu | forward =>
Before continuing, you might try some wrong answers.
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























3 is wrong. Please try again.

The "argument from illusion" tries to show that

    { 1 } - we cannot know if we perceive an objective external world.
    { 2 } - what we directly perceive is always sense date (never material objects).
    { 3 } - we perceive mere appearances, and not what things are in themselves.
    { 4 } - material objects are logical constructs out of sensations.

We might argue for this AFTER using the argument from illusion.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























4 is wrong. Please try again.

The "argument from illusion" tries to show that

    { 1 } - we cannot know if we perceive an objective external world.
    { 2 } - what we directly perceive is always sense date (never material objects).
    { 3 } - we perceive mere appearances, and not what things are in themselves.
    { 4 } - material objects are logical constructs out of sensations.

We might argue for this AFTER using the argument from illusion.

<= back | menu | forward =>
























 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

























the end