What Do Philosophers Do? Skepticism and the Practice of Philosophy
Xingming Hu
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqy009
2018-01-01
The Philosophical Quarterly
Abstract:This book argues against two sceptical arguments, and suggests that their enduring appeal is largely a consequence of various types of philosophical ‘illness’, including ‘argumentative slips, verbal distortions, anachronistic theorizing, unmotivated presuppositions, and plain acts of inattention and carelessness’ (p. 201). Maddy proposes that epistemologists should not only cure these types of illness but also adopt productive approaches. She makes her points through a detailed analysis of the writings of Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, Reid, Moore, Wittgenstein, Austin, Stroud, and others. The book consists of three lectures and two appendices. Lecture 1 is on the Dream Argument (DA), which states that we cannot know anything about the external world since we cannot rule out the possibility of dreaming. Maddy distinguishes ordinary dreaming from extraordinary dreaming. We can tell ordinary dreaming from waking. For example, waking experience is continuous and coherent while dreaming experience is not. By contrast, extraordinary dreaming is a name for the idea that all might be a dream: what we ordinarily take to be waking life is just another form of dreaming. Accordingly, DA rests on a premise that is ambiguous between two interpretations: (i) we cannot rule out the possibility of ordinary dreaming; (ii) we cannot rule out the possibility of extraordinary dreaming. Maddy argues that (i) is false. Hence, DA is unsound if it uses (i). However, if DA uses (ii), DA is not devastating according to Maddy. For one thing, (pace Stroud) our ordinary standards of knowledge do not explicitly or implicitly require the ability to rule out the possibility of extraordinary dreaming. For another, (ii) does not imply that none of our beliefs is more reasonable than its opposite. If we can still acquire reasonable beliefs, then it does not matter much even if we cannot know anything in the sense in which the sceptic uses ‘know’.