Cairetw,

Can we state that Plato supported a naïve realism or a complicated theory concerning perception? The answer can be given in the dialectical discussion of Theaetetus. Plato begun with the “naïve realism” of Protagoras theory, but he overstepped it with the theory of an object, which could be realized.[1] For example Protagoras stated that the wind has a set of capabilities, to be “unruffled”, “warm”, etc., Plato, on the other hand, said that the wind as a natural thing has two parts, one the aesthetic and the other the non-aesthetic.

Plato supported, also, another part, a third one, between the natural object and a viewer. Conford articulated it as “sense-object”. In Plato’s Theaetetus we find that: “Let us stick close to the statement we made a moment ago, and assume that nothing exists by itself as invariably one: then it will be apparent that black or white or any other color whatsoever is the result of the impact of the eye upon the appropriate motion, and therefore that which we call color [154a] will be in each instance neither that which impinges nor that which is impinged upon, but something between, which has occurred, peculiar to each individual.”

So the object (the aesthetic one) is a sui generic child “ekgonon”, which is the result of the two moving “fields”, the sensible and the non-sensible, on the contrary of an element of the natural object.

Yours,

Nikolaos Cleomenes