奥斯汀说那种认为我们只看见感觉材料,看不见物体的见解是“学究式”,也就是过分简单化,喜欢“表面整齐的分类”而不喜欢事实的捉摸不定的复杂性。根据他的说法,哲学家总想说,我们“直接知觉到的”只是感觉材料而不是物体,这是一种“伪造的对立”,一种“表面干净的二分法”。他提出的相反说法是:“我们所‘知觉’到的东西决不是只有一个种类,而是有好多不同的种类”。奥斯汀的说法是一种令人误解的片面真理,而且他攻击的物体与感觉材料之间的“伪造的对立”也没有能达到目的。感觉材料论者诚然对笔、虹等一类东西的视觉知觉作过分析,并且认为每一个事例都牵涉到感觉材料在内。但因此说哲学家就是否认或者模糊我们看见的这些形形色色东西的区别,那是毫无根据的。确实在感觉材料、感觉、知觉概念这些名辞后面可能隐藏着一些“令人迷惑的谬误”。但是奥斯汀提到的为我们知觉到的那些东西,并没有能如他指望我们那样,以此作为理由说感觉材料论是对一个错误问题的坏答案。奥斯汀认为那些用来教初学者的、常被人提出来然后又打下去的陈旧知觉学说,都非常粗疏而且容易引起误解;这样看是对的。他认为那些用来赞成或反对这些学说的论证有时也是粗疏和不能令人信服的;这也不错。但是讨论这些学说确有一样好处,就是使学生接触到一些想法,而这些想法他作为一个“不用心思的普通人”头脑里是不会有的。奥斯汀没有看出或者至少不承认,他否认的这些学说会有这样的好处。奥斯汀对于哲学的性质决不会想到提出一个笼统的总的看法,不论是消极的或积极的。但是初学哲学的人读了《感觉与被感觉的》之后,说不定一点信念都不剩了,觉得哲学除掉暴露哲学家的错误外,更没有别的事情好做。 Austin said that the kind of thinking that we only see the sensory material, invisible objects is “learning style”, that is, simplistic, like the “neat classification” and do not like the unpredictable complexity of the facts. According to him, philosophers always want to say that what we “perceive directly” is just the feeling of material rather than the object. It is a kind of “counterfeit counterpoint” and a “clean dichotomy.” The opposite of his argument is: “There is by no means only one kind of thing to which we” perceive “, but there are many different kinds of things.” Austen’s argument is a misleading one-sided truth, and the “counterfeit antagonism” between the object he attacks and the sensory material fails to achieve its purpose. Feeling Materialists honestly analyzed the visual perceptions of a class of things such as pen and rainbow, and considered that every case involved the sensory material. But to say that philosophers therefore denied or obscured the differences between the various things we saw was totally unfounded. It is true that there may be “confusing fallacies” behind these words of feeling of material, feeling, and perception. But what Austin mentions that we perceive can not, as he would expect us, justify the feeling that materialism is the bad answer to a wrong question. Austin believes that those old perceptual theories that are often used to teach beginners and which they then lay down are very crude and easily misunderstood; He argued that the arguments used to approve or disagree with these doctrines are sometimes crude and unconvincing; it is not bad. But discussing these doctrines does have the same benefit of exposing students to ideas that he would not have in his mind as a “mindless ordinary person.” Austin did not see or at least did not recognize, he denied these doctrines will have such benefits. Austin will never come up with a general general idea of ​​the nature of philosophy, be it negative or positive. However, when beginners’ philosophers read “Feel and Feel,” they may not have left any beliefs at all. They think that there is nothing wrong with philosophers exposing philosophers and nothing else.