Philosophers: Is "naive realism", true or false?

Question

Please answer the question in a philosophical context. Thanks everyone for your consideration. Have a great weekend.

Answer 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Na%C3%AFve_realism

'Naive realism is a common sense theory of perception. Most people, until they start reflecting philosophically, are naive realists. This theory is also known as "direct realism" or "common sense realism".

Naïve realism claims that the world is pretty much as common sense would have it. All objects are composed of matter, they occupy space, and have properties such as size, shape, texture, smell, taste and colour. These properties are usually perceived correctly. So, when we look at and touch things we see and feel those things directly, and so perceive them as they really are. Objects continue to obey the laws of physics and retain all their properties whether or not there is anyone present to observe them doing so.
'
Knowing the truth or falsity of any description is contingent on a somewhat or somewhats condition, so 'naive realism' is neither of the two absolutes true nor false.

Answer 2

Philosophers exist in what is termed ‘naïve realism’.
This translates into simple english as ‘hey, I am a philosopher. I am supposed to be smarter and more enlightened than 99.999% of the world. What the f-u-c-k am doing here flipping burgers, serving fries and cleaning toilets?’
Sound familiar ‘philosophers’?
Asking a philosopher about anything resembling real life is like asking a blind man how he likes the high definition picture on the 70” lcd flat screen. Get my point yet?
To quote ‘A Fish called Wanda’:
But you think you're an intellectual,
don't you, ape?

- Apes don't read philosophy.
- Yes, they do, Otto.

They just don't understand it.

The ‘philosophers’ that I have met and known are total parasites to society. They are usually unemployed, going from unskilled job to unskilled job, collecting welfare and living the most pathetic existence I have ever seen for individuals who self proclaim themselves as ‘intellectually superior’.

Answer 3

Don't think naive realism is possible. Think optimism and pessimism are naive, in that both must discount realism, i.e., realism is that if you don't persist, you'll create nothing of worth, and optimism contends you must be unrealistic to persist, while pessimism contends persistence toward accomplishment is wasted. One example of this, the other people who make statements beginning with "People seem...." as if they aren't themselves, people too.

Other examples, pessimists who contend everything is B.S., and optimists who contend everything is fine just as it is. There's always improvement to make.

Answer 4

If "naive realism" (NR) is itself an independent present object (in one's consciousness), the answer to your question is therefore "true," as NR is all about independent present objects.

If one introspects, one may discern if one's internal object (e.g., your question) is "whole," or if it is regarded in detector-and-object, mode. If the former, you are in naive realist (NR) mode. If the latter, you are in representational realist (RR) or other mode.

If you are an NR type with objects of internal consciousness, you are NR with respect to outer, physical objects.

If you are RR within, you are aware of and hence are likely to understand the process of differentiation which you have just employed. Apply this knowledge to your perception of a physical object: .are you "whole" with the object (as in insight meditation or with Husserlian phenomenological reduction), or are you again subject-object? If the latter, you are not perceiving directly, as a NR, but rather as an RR or some other such.

Answer 5

For instance, Descartes belongs to the 'naïve realism'.
About your question, I think about Descartes "Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum" - "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am". It's FALSE!
I would say against his saying: "I doubt, therefore I think/doubt/believe, and therefore I am.
My thought might belong to the "naïve realism" in our 'reality' (common sense) and in other parallel worlds too.
I would suggest reading the book of Kripke, S (1980) "Naming and Necessity"
P.S. There are simple people who do not belong to 'naive realism' like shamans.

Answer 6

"(b) in epistemology: that sense experience reports a true and uninterrupted, if limited, account of objects; that it is possible to have faithful and direct knowledge of the actual world."
Everyone is naive in some area. "if limited" explains that.

Answer 7

I would assume that children see wisdom with more clarity than most adults because children don't care about money or popularity, etc.

Answer 8

im not sure what a "context" is but Ill tell you it is true
I went from being smart to dumbing myself just to fit in.

im much happier now

Answer 9

Are you doing research? Or doing homework?
You should of course think for yourself. Your questions are sometimes so brief that I have a feeling you are copying the questions from a book...