This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
Against a view currently popular in the literature, it is argued that Kant was not a naïve realist about perceptual experience. Naive realism entails that perceptual experience is object-dependent in a very strong sense. In the first half of the paper, I explain what this claim amounts to and I undermine the evidence that has been marshalled in support of attributing it to Kant. In the second half of the paper, I explore in some detail Kant's account of hallucination and argue that no such account is available to someone who thinks that veridical perceptual experience is object-dependent in the naïve realist sense. Kant's theory provides for a remarkably sophisticated, bottom-up explanation of the phenomenal character of hallucinatory episodes and is crucial for gaining a proper understanding of his model of the mind and its place in nature.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Andrew Stephenson (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: