Ideas from 'Interview with Baggini and Stangroom' by Michael Martin [2001], by Theme Structure

[found in 'New British Philosophy' by Baggini,J/Stangroom,J [Routledge 2002,0-415-24346-7]].

green numbers give full details    |     back to texts     |     unexpand these ideas

1. Philosophy / D. Nature of Philosophy / 5. Aims of Philosophy / e. Philosophy as reason
Interesting philosophers hardly every give you explicitly valid arguments
                        Full Idea: Notice that very few philosophers - certainly almost none of the ones who are interesting to read - give you explicitly valid arguments.
                        From: Michael Martin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.134)
                        A reaction: I never thought that was going to happen in philosophy. What I do get is, firstly, lots of interesting reasons for holding beliefs, and a conviction that good beliefs need good reasons, and, secondly, a really coherent view of the world.
2. Reason / E. Argument / 1. Argument
Valid arguments can be rejected by challenging the premises or presuppositions
                        Full Idea: Putting forward a valid argument isn't necessarily going to succeed in getting someone to see things your way, because if they don't accept the conclusion, they ask which premises they should reject, or whether an illegitimate assumption is being made.
                        From: Michael Martin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.136)
                        A reaction: Valid arguments are still vital. It is just that good philosophers realise the problem noted here, and spend huge stretches of discussion on establishing acceptance of premises, and showing that there are no dodgy presuppositions.
12. Knowledge Sources / B. Perception / 1. Perception
An error theory of perception says our experience is not as it seems to be
                        Full Idea: You can end up with an error theory of perception, which says our experience is not as it seems to be, as bizarre as that might be.
                        From: Michael Martin (Interview with Baggini and Stangroom [2001], p.140)
                        A reaction: This is because of the clash between subjective and objective aspects of perception. It is an enticing proposal, just the sort of thing I pay philosophers to come up with. Given oddities like blindsight, I think it should be taken seriously.