From http://hypernews.ngdc.noaa.gov
David Hume's statements on ethics foreshadowed tho...
English: An engraving of Scottish philosopher Davi...The Essay A Realistic View on Perception seems to progress from the ambiguities presented by realistic metaphysics to a defence of the Indian Realism as posited by the Naiyayikas in order to establish paratah pramanavada as a form of fallibism, the only way to posit the realistic view of perception. It was not until I read through the introduction of another essay written by Dr Matilal of the reader entitled ?Perception: An essay on Classical Indian Theories of Knowledge? that I found out that the ambiguity prevalent at the starting of the essay was rather deliberate. It contradicts the over explained notion of a God?s Eye view. In ?Perception: An essay on Classical Indian Theories of Knowledge? it was explained pertaining to a layman?s rather obvious worldview instead of that of a realist. This was to keep conformity with PF Strawson?s pre-theoretical scheme which was nicknamed as asiddhi or sadhyasama (according to Matilal). In simplistic terms it means that evidence should not be given the status of a theory especially if it is meant to prove the theory in question. It talks about not what the fact warrants but the fact itself. In the essay A Realistic View on Perception however, Matilal has ascribed what Putman has called the existential perspective as a God?s Eye point of view. I do n0ot think there that there can be any significant in the understanding of God?s Eye point of view as maintained by Dummett and as that maintained by Putman since the following paragraph in both the essays bring home similar points and arguments, just in different ways.
The writing style of both these papers differs considerably. While the essay on Perception: An essay on Classical Indian Theories of Knowledge ideas are put across as clearly and explicitly as possible,