Naive Realism

Naïve realism accepts the mind-object qualia false-dichotomy, holding that sense impressions are “in the object” in the sense that man’s perception of a given entity is a primary—that your perception of a table doesn’t merely reflect certain aspects of its nature, but that it is the be-all and end-all. On such a view, consciousness is merely a passive “mirror” that reflects the contents of reality—such a mirror would lack identity, it would be unlimited in its capacities, able to acquire sensory impressions without any particular means of doing so. This is a clear violation of the law of causality—it is an effect (sense impressions) without the cause (having organs that are capable of producing said impressions).

Although Ayn Rand‘s theory of perception has sometimes been called “naive realism,” the term does not apply. Naive realism is an ancient form of the mirror theory; it claims that the senses do give us the content of reality “pure.” The senses, naive realists hold, are valid because sensory qualities exist in objects independent of man’s means of perception, which–in defiance of all evidence–are held to contribute nothing to our experiences.

The intention of naive realism, which is to uphold the unqualified validity of the senses, is correct. But the content of the theory, unable to deal with the issue of sensory form, fails to implement its intention and merely plays into the hands of the anti-senses cohorts.

Once again, the only accurate name for the Objectivist viewpoint is “Objectivism.”¹