排序方式: 共有8条查询结果,搜索用时 15 毫秒
1
1.
2.
3.
An argument whose conclusion C isessential evidence for one of its premises canprovide its target audience with justificationfor believing C. This is possible becausewe can enhance our justification for believinga proposition C by integrating it into anexplanatory network of beliefs for which C itself provides essential evidence. I arguefor this in light of relevant features ofdoxastic circularity, epistemic circularity,and explanatory inferences. Finally, I confirmmy argument with an example and respond toobjections. 相似文献
4.
Andrew D. Cling 《Metaphilosophy》2014,45(2):161-171
There are important similarities between the epistemic regress problem and the problem of the criterion. Each turns on plausible principles stating that epistemic reasons must be supported by epistemic reasons but that having reasons is impossible if that requires having endless regresses of reasons. These principles are incompatible with the possibility of reasons, so each problem is a paradox. Whether there can be an antiskeptical solution to these paradoxes depends upon the kinds of reasons that we need in order to attain our epistemic goals. This article explains the problems and considers the ways in which two different conceptions of human flourishing support the value of different kinds of reasons. One conception requires reasons that allow an easy solution to these paradoxes. The other—rational autonomy—requires reasons that depend upon endless regresses. So we cannot have the kinds of fully transparent reasons required for rational autonomy. 相似文献
5.
Philosophical Studies - 相似文献
6.
The epistemic regress problem 总被引:1,自引:0,他引:1
Andrew D. Cling 《Philosophical Studies》2008,140(3):401-421
The best extant statement of the epistemic regress problem makes assumptions that are too strong. An improved version assumes
only that that reasons require support, that no proposition is supported only by endless regresses of reasons, and that some
proposition is supported. These assumptions are individually plausible but jointly inconsistent. Attempts to explain support
by means of unconceptualized sensations, contextually immunized propositions, endless regresses, and holistic coherence all
require either additional reasons or an external condition on support that is arbitrary from the believer’s own point of view.
相似文献
Andrew D. ClingEmail: |
7.
One way to solve the epistemic regress problem would be to show that we can acquire justification by means of an infinite regress. This is infinitism. This view has not been popular, but Peter Klein has developed a sophisticated version of infinitism according to which all justified beliefs depend upon an infinite regress of reasons. Klein's argument for infinitism is unpersuasive, but he successfully responds to the most compelling extant objections to the view. A key component of his position is his claim that an infinite regress is necessary, but not sufficient, for justified belief. This enables infinitism to avoid a number of otherwise compelling objections. However, it commits infinitism to the existence of an additional feature of reasons that is necessary and, together with the regress condition, sufficient for justified belief. The trouble with infinitism is that any such condition could account for the connection between justification and truth only by undermining the rationale for the regress condition itself. 相似文献
8.
1