 | This is an interesting book that attempts to defend naive (or vulgar) realism. The first couple chapters provide a detailed description of naive realism, and a description of some of the more common alternatives in today's philosophical community. The author explains why philosophy went towards postmodernism, and traces the roots back to Hume and Kant. This is all treated as background to help the reader understand the significance of the debate, as well as the pervasiveness of the postmodern view.
The real bulk of the book is written in the form of a dialogue between a professor and a student. In the first half of the book, the professor, deeply mired in postmodern thought, attempts to convince his student to reject naive realism and accept some variant of idealism. The student, wary of the implications, tries to get the professor to back up his arguments. The professor makes convincing arguments, and the author really attempts to argue strongly for the postmodern side. Some of the arguments are very seductive. But the student, stubborn and unwilling to simply take the professor's word for it, constantly demands proof and clarity. When colorful language is used, the student demands clear definitions and consistent use of them.
The second half of the dialogue focuses on the issue of radical skepticism. The author argues that Kant, idealism, postmodernism, etc., are all simply attempts to deal with radical skepticism. The argument starts off strong, and the student feels a little overwhelmed, but then starts asking questions, and questioning assumptions.
The author's stated goal is to take on these big ideas directly, and she does. Instead of trying to avoid getting into an argument about radical skepticism, she jumps in and tries to answer it clearly and consistently.
One of her pet peeves is the "burden of proof". Too often both sides claim it as an attempt to win by default. She's careful throughout to make sure that no side of the argument gets to use it. If you want to argue for realism, you have to explain why your position is better than the radical skeptics. They don't get to simply deny your arguments and claim you haven't proven it. They have to show why your arguments are flawed and how their own position is superior. By avoiding the use of the "burden of proof", she levels the playing field and demands both positions be judged on their own merits.
There's much to like in this book. Not only does it do a pretty good job of making the case for realism, it also takes on many of the philosophical "monsters". As the book says, it takes on "the Cartesian Demon, the Brain in the Vat, the Problem of the Criterion, and Hume's Riddle of Induction". The arguments are quite intelligent, and the author is very thorough. The dialogue form makes it easy to read, although you can see the student losing his temper!
|
The Slightest Philosophy by Quee Nelson
