ABSTRACT
More than one philosopher of impressive intelligence has taken the fact that normally we can see no more of a physical object than part of its surface to have paradoxical implications to signify that the common-sense belief that we can see physical objects and on this basis know that there are such objects must either be flatly rejected or importantly qualified. In discussions of perception one quite frequently hears it said that it is just trivially true that seeing a physical object involves seeing part of its surface, some philosophers think, on the contrary, that this represents a surprising discovery, and that it signifies that our seeing of physical objects is not up to Common Sense's expectations. A Philosophical Study, Ithaca, New York 1957. Philo's argument here is an argument about an argument, Philo is disputing the logical cogency of Cleanthes' reasoning.
