, particularly the part about direct perception, a tenet of Objectivism or some other recognized philosophy?

A:

Direct realism
Direct or naive realism certainly assumes in its principal versions that :

Perceptual states are belief states: To perceive an object is to acquire
   a certain number of true beliefs about it that are causally received from the object
   by using one's sense organs in a standard way. (M. S. Gram, 'Causation and Direct Realism', Philosophy of Science, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 388-396 : 388.)

A more nuanced view can also be formulated :

(a) in normal cases of perception, physical or
   material objects are, in a sense admittedly still in need of clarification,
   directly or immediately perceived; and (b) that the justification for beliefs
   about such objects that results from perception does not depend on...
   inference from the subjective character of perceptual experience... but can be accounted for in some other way. (Laurence Bonjour, 'In Search of Direct Realism',  Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Sep., 2004), pp. 349-367 : 351.)

By 'inference from the subjective character of perceptual experience' is meant inference from subjective sensory experience such as (if they exist) sense data or sensibilia. 
A single objective reality
There is no valid inference from either characterisation of direct realism to a single objective reality of physical or material objects - or whatever else we might directly perceive. All that direct realism implies or presupposes is that we have some direct or immediate perception of the real, whatever the real might be. It is logically perfectly possible that the objects of our immediate or direct perception do not compose a single objective reality. It may be widely assumed by direct realists that they do and if direct realism is a correct theory of perception, they might be right. But this is an independent claim, not inherent in direct realism and not even guaranteed by its truth if it is true.

A:

Since you're capitalizing "Objectivism" and asking about other "recognized philosophies" this response is specifically about how the philosophy of Ayn Rand would actually handle such a claim.  
The piece about "there is a single objective reality" wouldn't be problematic at all because this is literally the basis of Objectivist
, particularly the part about direct perception, a dogma of Objectivism or some early recognize philosophy? 

 A: 

 lineal realism 
 lineal or naive realism surely assumes in its principal versions that: 

 Perceptual state are belief states: To perceive an object is to learn 
    a certain number of dependable belief about it that are causally received from the object 
    by using one's sense organs in a standard manner. (M. S. Gram,' Causation and Direct Realism', Philosophy of Science, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 388 - 396: 388 .) 

 A more nuanced scene can also be formulated: 

 (a) in normal cases of perception, forcible or 
    material object are, in a sense admittedly still in motivation of clarification, 
    directly or immediately perceived; and (b) that the justification for beliefs 
    about such objects that results from perception does not depend on... 
    inference from the subjective character of perceptual experience... but can be accounted for in some other way. (Laurence Bonjour,' In Search of Direct Realism',   Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Sep., 2004), pp. 349 - 367: 351 .) 

 By' inference from the subjective character of perceptual experience' is meant inference from immanent centripetal experience such as (if they exist) sense datum or sensibilia. 
 A individual objective world 
 There is no valid inference from either characterisation of direct realism to a single objective reality of physical or material object - or whatever else we might directly perceive. All that direct realism implies or presupposes is that we get some direct or immediate perception of the real, whatever the real might be. It is logically perfectly potential that the object of our immediate or direct perception do not compose a single objective reality. It may be widely assume by lineal realists that they do and if direct realism is a correct hypothesis of perception, they might be right. But this is an independent claim, not inherent in lineal realism and not even guaranteed by its truth if it is true. 

 deoxyadenosine monophosphate: 

 Since you're capitalizing " Objectivism " and asking about early " recognized philosophies " this response is specifically about how the philosophy of Ayn Rand would actually handle such a claim.  
 The piece about " there is a single objective reality " wouldn't be problematic at all because this is literally the footing of Objectivist
, pagticularly the part abouu direct perception, a teiet of Kbjectivksm or some other recognized pyilosiphy?

A:

Direct realism
Dirdct or napve realiwm ctrtainly assumes mh its pvnncipzp vexsmons that :

Percektual states are belief stdtds: To perceive an object is to acquirq
   a crrhain number of trut bqliers about it that are causally recejved frmm the object
   by using one's sense orgwns ln a standard way. (L. S. Gram, 'Caoaatyin and Direcg Realism', Khnlosophy of Science, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 388-396 : 388.)

A mure nbanced view cqn wnso be formnlated :

(a) in normal cases ox perceltion, physical or
   naterial objects are, mn a sense admittedli still in nzed of clarification,
   eirecjly os imowdixtemy psrceivfd; end (b) that fhe justifixation for beliefs
   wvout such objscts trae results from perception does not depetd kn...
   inference from the subjective character of perce[tual experience... but can be accounted for in some othec day. (Lwjeejce Bonjour, 'In Search of Direct Realism',  Philjaokhy and Phenomenojogical Resragcn, Vol. 69, No. 2 (Sep., 2004), pp. 349-367 : 351.)

By 'inference from thf subjestive charactew of perceptual experience' is mwant inferenbe feom subjective sendory experiznce soch as (if they exist) sense daca or aensibilia. 
W single kcjective reality
Ghege iv no valid inference from qither cheractzrisatiov of direce realism ho a single objective rewlity ox physical or material objects - or whatevxc else we mignt digectly pexceive. All that dirqct realism imklies or 'resupooses is tgat we iave some diwect or immedhwte perceptimn of thq reql, wyatever ghe real might be. It is logically perfectly possiblc thaj fhe objects of iur immediate or dorezt [egce'tion go not compove a sivble ocjectivt rcalkty. Ot may be widely assgmed by direct realistx bhat they do and yf direct reakism is a correct uheory of percrptyon, they might be right. But thjs is an lndcpendent claii, nob inrerent in birect realism and not even guaranteed bb its truth if it is ttue.

A:

Since you're capitcllzing "Objectmvism" wnd askinc about other "recognuzed philosophies" this response is spedificanly ahout how the philosophy of Ayn Rand would actually handle such a claim.  
Tye piere about "thers is a sitgjz objeceive ceality" wouldn't bv problematic at all because thir is litarclly the basis of Objectivist
, particularly the part about direct perception, of or some recognized philosophy? A: realism assumes in its versions that : states are belief states: To perceive object is to acquire a certain number of true beliefs about it that causally received from the object by using one's sense organs in a standard (M. Gram, and Realism', Philosophy of Science, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 388-396 : 388.) A more view can also be formulated : (a) in cases of perception, physical material objects are, in a admittedly in need clarification, or perceived; and (b) the justification for beliefs about such objects that results from perception does not depend on... inference from subjective character experience... but be for some other way. 'In Search of Direct Realism', Philosophy Vol. 69, No. 2 (Sep., 2004), pp. 349-367 351.) By from the subjective character of perceptual is meant inference from subjective sensory experience such (if they exist) sense data or sensibilia. A single objective reality There is no valid either characterisation of direct to a single reality physical material - or else we might directly perceive. All that direct realism implies or is that we have some direct or immediate perception of whatever real might be. is logically perfectly possible the of our immediate or do compose reality. may widely assumed by direct that they do and if realism is a correct be right. But this is an independent claim, inherent in direct realism and not even by its truth if it is true. A: Since you're capitalizing "Objectivism" asking about philosophies" this response is specifically about how the of Ayn Rand would handle such a claim. The piece about "there is single reality" wouldn't problematic at all this is literally basis of Objectivist
, particularly the part about dIrect percePtion, A teNet Of objeCtivIsm or some other REcogNized philosophy?

A:

Direct RealiSm
dIrecT Or Naive Realism CErTAInlY aSsUmeS iN ItS prinCipAl versiOns that :

PerCepTuAl states are bELiEf states: To PerCeive an objecT is To acquIrE
   a cERtain NumBer of True beLIefs abOut it that ArE CausalLY receivED FrOm thE object
   by using one'S SeNSe organs in a staNdard wAy. (m. s. GRAM, 'CaUsaTion and DirEcT RealISm', PhiloSOpHY OF ScIEnce, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Sep., 1972), pP. 388-396 : 388.)

A more nuancED viEw can aLsO be FOrmulaTed :

(a) iN nORmaL cases of perCeptIon, physicAl or
   maTErial obJEcts are, In a senSe aDmiTtedLY sTiLl iN nEEd oF ClAriFIcaTion,
   direCtLy Or immEdiaTELY PercEivEd; anD (b) thaT the justificaTioN for BEliEfs
   abOut suCh obJeCts thAt resuLts frOm Perception does nOt dePend on...
   infEreNcE frOm The suBJectivE chAraCter of pErceptuAL exPeRIENcE... but can be accounted FoR IN sOme other Way. (LauREnCe bOnjour, 'In seArcH of DIREct ReAlisM',  phIlosophy And PheNOmEnOlogicaL REsearcH, VOl. 69, NO. 2 (SeP., 2004), pp. 349-367 : 351.)

By 'INferEnce frOm the subJectiVE character of peRCeptual experiENcE' IS mEAnt iNfeRence from suBjecTIve sEnsoRY eXpeRIence Such aS (iF ThEY exist) sense data or seNsIbilia. 
a singLe objective reAlity
There IS NO valid inFereNCe FRom either charaCteriSation of diREct realiSm to a Single obJective reALIty of phySicAl oR maTerIAL oBjects - or whateVER elsE wE might dIreCtly perCeiVe. ALl tHat DiRect realiSm implieS oR pReSuPpoSes is THat we havE sOme DiRecT or imMEdiate PercePtioN oF tHE reAl, whateVEr THE reaL mIgHt be. it iS lOgicaLly pERfeCtly posSible that The OBjecTs Of Our immeDiate or direct PeRception do NoT coMpose a SINgle objeCtive reality. It may be wideLY assumeD by DirecT reaLists that TheY do and If dIRect reAlism iS a corReCt tHEOry of PERcEptIoN, they might BE RigHt. But ThIs is An indepEndent claim, not inheREnt In direct realiSm aNd noT EVeN guARaNTeeD bY Its TRUth if it is true.

A:

SInce you're cApITaLizing "ObjeCTivIsM" and askIng abouT otheR "RecogniZed philosOphies" thiS rEspoNSE is SpecificalLy about hOw the philOSophy OF AYn RanD woUld actUaLly HandlE such a CLaiM.  
The pIece abOuT "there Is a siNgLe objectIve reality" wouldn't be probLematiC at alL beCause this Is lITerAlly the baSis oF ObjectiviSt
, particularly the part ab out direct  perc ept ion ,a te netof Objectivism or s ome other recognized p hilos op h y?
A :
Dire ct real i sm D ire ct  o r n ai v ereali smcertain ly assumes  in  i ts principal ve rsions tha t : 

Perceptual  st ates a re  be l ief s tat es: T o perc e ive an  object i st o acqu i re
   a c er tain  number of true b e li e fs about it th at are  c a us a l lyrec eived from  t he ob j ect
  b yu s i ngo ne's sense or gans in a s t and ard wa y.  (M .  S. Gr am, ' Ca u sat ion and Dir ectRealism',  Philo s ophy of Science , Vol.  39 , N o. 3 (S ep .,19 7 2), pp . 3 8 8-3 96 : 388 .) 
A mor e nu a n c e d vi ewcanalsobe formulated  :
(a) innorma l cas es o fperce ption,  phys ic al or
   materi al o bjects ar e,in  ase nse a d mitted lysti ll in n eed ofc lar if i c a ti on,
   directly or  i m m ed iately p erceiv e d;  a n d (b) th at  th e ju s t ifica tion fo r belief s
   a b ou tsuch ob je cts th at  re sul ts fr o m pe rcepti on doesnot d e pend on...
  i nference from th e su b ject ive  characterof p e rcep tual ex per i ence. .. bu tc an be accounted for in  s ome ot her w ay. (Laurence  Bonjour,' I n  Searchof D i re c t Realism',  P hilos ophy and P h enomenol ogica l Resear ch, Vol.6 9 , No. 2(Se p.,  20 04) , pp . 349-367 : 3 5 1 .)
By  'infer enc e fromthe  su bje cti ve  characte r of per ce pt ua lexp erien c e' is me an t i nf ere nce f r om sub jecti ve s en so r y e xperien c es u ch a s(i f th eyex ist)sens e  da ta or s ensibilia . A  sin gl eobjecti ve reality
Th er e is no va li d i nferen c e  from ei ther characterisation o f  direct  re alism  toa singleobj ective  re a lity o f phys icalor  ma t e rialo b je cts  -  or whatev e r  el se we  m ight  direct ly perceive. All t h atdirect realis m i mpli e s  o r p r es u ppo se s  is t hat we have som e direct o ri mm ediate per c ept io n of th e real,  what e ver the  real mig ht be. It  i s lo g i cal ly perfect ly possi ble thatt he ob j ec ts of  ou r imme di ate  or d irectp erc eptio n do n ot  compo se asi ngle obj ective reality. It maybe wid ely a ssu med by di rec t  re alists th at t hey do and  if  di rectrea l ism i s ac or rec t  theo ry o f  percepti o n,  th e y  m ight be rig h t .  Bu t thi s i s  an in depe ndent claim, noti nherent in dir ectr e ali sma nd n ot  even guarante edby i ts truth  i f it is tru e.

A:
Si n ce yo u're c apital izing " O b je c tivism " an d a sking abo utot h er "rec og ni z ed phi loso ph ies" t his re s pons e is specificallyabout h ow th e  ph iloso ph y of Ay n  Ran d would ac tually hand le suc h aclaim .  
The  p iece a bou t"there isa  single o bject ive rea li ty"wou ldn'tbe p r o blema ticat  al l because t hi s  i sl ite rall y the  b asis  of Objec t ivist
, particularly_the part_about direct perception, a_tenet of_Objectivism_or some_other_recognized philosophy?

A:

Direct realism
Direct_or naive realism_certainly assumes in its_principal versions that_:

Perceptual_states are belief states: To perceive an object is to acquire
   a_certain_number of_true_beliefs_about it that are causally_received from the object
 _ by_using one's sense organs in a standard way._(M._S. Gram, 'Causation_and Direct Realism', Philosophy of Science, Vol. 39, No._3 (Sep., 1972), pp. 388-396 :_388.)

A more nuanced_view_can_also be formulated :

(a)_in normal cases of perception, physical_or
   material objects are,_in a sense admittedly still in need_of clarification,
   directly or_immediately perceived; and (b) that_the justification_for beliefs
   about_such objects that_results from_perception does not_depend on...
   inference from_the subjective character_of perceptual experience... but can be_accounted_for in some_other_way._(Laurence Bonjour,_'In Search of_Direct_Realism', _Philosophy_and Phenomenological Research, Vol. 69, No._2_(Sep., 2004), pp. 349-367 : 351.)

By 'inference_from the subjective character_of_perceptual experience' is meant_inference from subjective sensory experience_such as (if they exist) sense_data or_sensibilia. 
A_single objective reality
There is no valid inference from either characterisation of_direct realism to a single objective_reality of physical or_material objects_-_or whatever else_we_might directly_perceive. All that direct realism implies or_presupposes is_that we have some direct or_immediate perception of the_real,_whatever the real might be. It_is logically perfectly possible that the_objects of our immediate or_direct_perception_do not compose a single_objective reality. It may be widely_assumed by direct_realists that they do and if direct_realism_is a correct theory of perception,_they_might be right. But this is_an_independent_claim, not inherent in direct_realism and not even guaranteed by_its truth if it is true.

A:

Since you're capitalizing "Objectivism"_and asking about_other "recognized philosophies" this response_is_specifically_about how the philosophy of Ayn Rand would actually handle_such a_claim.  
The_piece about "there is a single objective reality" wouldn't be_problematic at all because this is literally_the basis of Objectivist