What is the argument from illusion and how is it used to motivate indirect realism over direct realism

choose one of the following open question and incorporate lecture slides

(1) What is the classical account of knowledge?

(2) What are Gettier-style counterexamples, and how do they challenge the classical account of knowledge?

(3) What, if anything, is wrong with defining knowledge as justified true belief that is based on no false assumptions?

(4) Is knowledge instrumentally valuable? If so, why, and to what extent?

(5) Is knowledge more valuable than mere true belief?

(6) What is the radical sceptical argument, and how does it trade on (i) sceptical hypotheses, and (ii) the closure principle?

(7) Can one coherently deny the closure principle?

(8) Is it possible to know the denials of radical sceptical hypotheses?

(9) Is ‘knows’ a context-sensitive term? If so, does this have any bearing on radical scepticism?

(10) What is the hard problem of consciousness? How hard is it?

(11) What is the ‘Mary’ problem against physicalism, and how effective is it?

(12) What are philosophical zombies, and what problem are they meant to pose for physicalism? How plausible is the zombie argument?

(13) Is conceivability a guide to (metaphysical) possibility? If not, why might this be important?

(14) What is direct realism, and how does it differ from indirect realism?

(15) What is the argument from illusion, and how is it used to motivate indirect realism over direct realism? Is it effective?

(15) What is disjunctivism, and how does it respond to the argument from illusion?

phil_intros5

phil_intros6