In defending freedom, most libertarians have appealed to a moral framework that puts an emphasis on the concept of moral rights. Rejecting that approach, Richard Fumerton offers a fresh, nuanced, and balanced "consequentialist" perspective on the importance of defending liberty.

... and Normative Epistemology The Distinction Between Metaepistemology and Normative Epistemology Although this terminology is relatively new, ...

_Epistemology_ is an accessible and indispensable volume for undergraduates studying philosophy. Essential introduction to epistemology, a field of fundamental philosophical importance Offers concise and well-written synopses of different epistemological debates and concerns.

The relationship between mind and matter, mental states and physical states, has occupied the attention of philosophers for thousands of years. Richard Fumerton's primary concern is the knowledge argument for dualism - an argument that proceeds from the idea that we can know truths about our existence and our mental states without knowing any truths about the physical world. This view has come under relentless criticism, but here Fumerton makes a powerful case for its rehabilitation, demonstrating clearly (...) the importance of its interconnections with a wide range of other controversies within philosophy. Fumerton analyzes philosophical views about the nature of thought and the relation of those views to arguments for dualism, and investigates the connection between a traditional form of foundationalism about knowledge, and a foundationalist view about thought that underlies traditional arguments for dualism. His book will be of great interest to those studying epistemology and the philosophy of mind. (shrink)

In this paper I want to cast doubt on the claim that there is a legitimate process of reasoning to the best explanation which can serve as an alternative to either straightforward inductive reasoning or a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning. I shall argue a) that paradigmatic cases of acceptable arguments to the best explanation must be considered enthymemes and b) that when the suppressed premises are made explicit we have all of the premises we need to present either (...) a straightforward inductive argument or an argument employing both induction and deduction. (shrink)

This book is a defense of realism about truth.

In this paper I argue that there are excellent reasons to embrace nonrelational (adverbial) analyses of sensations and intentional states. I shall further argue, however, that the epistemology of experience requires that we recognize at least one conscious state that is genuinely relational—awareness or acquaintance. It is through the relational state of being acquainted with non-relational mental states that one can end a regress of justification.

_John Stuart Mill_ investigates the central elements of the 19th century philosopher’s most profound and influential works, from _On Liberty_ to _Utilitarianism_ and _The Subjection of Women_. Through close analysis of his primary works, it reveals the very heart of the thinker’s ideas, and examines them in the context of utilitarianism, liberalism and the British empiricism prevalent in Mill’s day. • Presents an analysis of the full range of Mill’s primary writings, getting to the core of the philosopher’s ideas. • (...) Examines the central elements of Mill’s writings in easily accessible prose • Places Mill’s work and thought within the larger cultural and social context of 19th century Britain • Illustrates the continued relevance of Mill’s philosophy to today’s reader. (shrink)

_Epistemology _is an accessible and indispensable volume for undergraduates studying philosophy. Essential introduction to epistemology, a field of fundamental philosophical importance Offers concise and well-written synopses of different epistemological debates and concerns.

Coady’s book is probably the single most comprehensive treatment of philosophical questions relating to testimony and as such must be read by anyone interested in the topic. His epistemological conclusions concerning testimony challenge much of the philosophical tradition.

The contributions in this volume make an important effort to resurrect a rather old fashioned form of foundationalism. They defend the position that there are some beliefs that are justified, and are not themselves justified by any further beliefs. This epistemic foundationalism has been the subject of rigorous attack by a wide range of theorists in recent years, leading to the impression that foundationalism is a thing of the past. DePaul argues that it is precisely the volume and virulence of (...) the assaults which points directly to the strength and coherence of the position. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that there is no viable alternative to construing our knowledge and justified belief as resting on a foundation restricted to truths about our internal states. Against Williamson and others I defend the claim that the internal life of a cognizer really does constitute a special sort of cognitive home that is importantly different from the rest of what we think we know and justifiably believe.

Carroll's short piece “What the Tortoise said to Achilles” in many ways anticipates issues that arise in a number of contemporary controversies. One might argue, for example, that initially plausible attempts to deal with the problem of easy knowledge will land one in the unfortunate position of Achilles who followed the Tortoise down a road that leads to vicious infinite regress. Or consider the conditions required for inferential justification. For idealized inferential justification, I have defended the view that to be (...) justified in believing P on the basis of E one needs to be not only justified in believing E, but justified in believing that E makes probable P. And again, critics have argued that such a strong requirement fails to learn the lesson that Achilles should have been taught by the Tortoise. Even more generally, one might well argue that strong access internalists will need to deal with a variation of Carroll's puzzle even for their accounts of non-inferential justification. In this paper I'll examine these controversies with a mind to reaching a conclusion about just exactly how one can accept intellectually demanding conditions on justified belief without encountering vicious regress. (shrink)

In this article, I try to defend my conception of noninferential justification from important criticisms raised by Ted Poston in a recent article published in Philosophical Studies. More specifically, I argue that from within the framework of an acquaintance theory, one can still allow for fallible noninferential justification, and one can do so without losing the advantages I claim for the theory.

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Qualitative Hedonism Objections to Mill's Qualitative Hedonism: Internal Inconsistency and Value Pluralism The Judgment of Competent Agents: Self‐Development and Value Measurement Self‐Development and Virtue Ethics Further Reading.

In “Theories of Justification,” Richard Fumerton begins an overview of several prominent positions on the nature of justification by isolating epistemic justification from nonepistemic justification. He also distinguishes between “having justification for a belief” and “having a justified belief,” arguing that the former is conceptually more fundamental. Fumerton then addresses the possibility that justification is a normative matter, suggesting that this possibility has little to offer as a concept of epistemic justification. He also critically examines more specific (...) attempts to capture the structure and content of epistemic justification. These include traditional foundationalism and variants thereof, externalist versions of foundationalism, contextualism, coherentism, and “mixed” theories which combine aspects of coherentism and foundationalism. (shrink)

Let’s define epistemological direct realism as the view that we have noninferentially justified beliefs in at least some contingent propositions describing the external physical world. I add the adjective “external” here so as to leave open the question of whether sensations and other mental phenomena are themselves physical. I take it that an indirect realist can consistently maintain both that all knowledge of external physical reality must be inferred from knowledge of subjective sensations and also conclude that subjective sensations are, (...) for example, brain states. It’s a bit awkward, however, to use the cumbersome expression “external physical reality” and so for ease of exposition I shall often omit the adjective “external.” I shall say that a proposition describes the physical world only if its truth entails a proposition which attributes to some object those properties in virtue of which the thing is physical. So, for example, I might be able to know that the F exists, where the F is, in fact, a physical object. But if the proposition that the F exists does not entail that the F is physical, the proposition that the F exists is not, in this sense, a proposition describing the physical world. Berkeley, for example, sometimes posed as an epistemological direct realist when he claimed both that we can know unproblematically that certain ideas exist and that a physical object is nothing but a bundle of ideas. But when he was being careful he made clear that the ideas we know directly are never by themselves constitutive of a physical object—at best they are logical “parts” of objects. On his more sophisticated view, knowledge that a given physical object exists would always require inference—complex inference at that. Berkeley was no epistemological direct realist. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Green Mill? Mill and Radical Environmentalism Mill and Romanticism Further Reading.

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction Liberty of Thought and Expression Autonomy and Individuality Autonomy, Individuality, and Community: The Case of Mormon Polygamy Further Reading.

This chapter contains sections titled: Introduction The Art of Life and Morality Morality: Act‐ and Rule‐Utilitarianism Further Reading.

After arguing that truth-making is properly construed as a partnership between truth bearers and truth-makers, I focus on two prominent arguments against the category of fact as one of the key relata in the truth-making relation. After rejecting those arguments, I go on to examine a more difficult issue, one that might force us to appreciate more fully the robust role that thought has in “creating” truth.

In this paper I explore the idea of developing something like Sosa's influential distinction between cognitio and scientia to epistemic justification. On the assumption that we should, I explore the question of whether we should do so by either beginning with a really basic, intellectually undemanding kind of justification, recognizing more sophisticated intellectually rewarding justification by layering more demanding requirements on that basic sort, or beginning with an ideal sort of justification and recognizing less demanding sorts of justification by stripping (...) away conditions from that ideal justification. (shrink)

In this paper I am primarily interested in establishing that a coherence theory of truth is conceptually incoherent. Although my primary concern is with the coherence theory of truth, I shall point out that the problem I raise has a striking parallel in a now well-known objection to coherence theories of justification (an objection that, ironically, was brought to the fore by a proponent of a coherence theory of justification, Laurence Bonjour).

In this paper I am primarily interested in establishing that a coherence theory of truth is conceptually incoherent. Although my primary concern is with the coherence theory of truth, I shall point out that the problem I raise has a striking parallel in a now well-known objection to coherence theories of justification (an objection that, ironically, was brought to the fore by a proponent of a coherence theory of justification, Laurence Bonjour).

For traditional epistemologists like myself the rise in popularity of externalist epistemologies has made philosophical life more than a little difficult. The debate between internalist and externalist analyses of knowledge and justification has implications that range far beyond the immediate topic in dispute—the nature of knowledge and justified belief. This paper was written for a conference titled "Can Epistemology Be Unified?" Whether or not it can be unified, it certainly is not at the present time. To say that a field (...) of philosophy is unified is not, of course, to say that there is universal agreement on the answers to fundamental questions—if unification required that, then no field of philosophy would ever be unified. It is enough for epistemology to be unified that epistemologists recognize the legitimacy or philosophical interest of the same kinds of questions and recognize the legitimacy of the same general philosophical methodology. Both internalists and externalists are indeed addressing a common question when they ask about the nature of knowledge and justified belief, when the ask, that is, metaepistemological questions. Moreover, as far as I can tell, in attempting to answer metaepistemological questions, epistemologists employ more or less the classic methodology of analytic philosophy—analyses of epistemic concepts seek necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of epistemic concepts, and proposals are evaluated with the thought experiments that have been the stock in trade of analytic philosophy for centuries. The field of metaepistemology is unified. If the externalist's metaepistemology were correct, however, we would need to rethink the entire conceptual framework within which philosophers have addressed a host of epistemological and even metaphysical issues. If paradigm externalists were correct, philosophers, qua philosophers, should stop asking certain questions they used to find very interesting and should even abandon certain methods of doing philosophy. In this paper I am primarily interested in the implications of an externalist epistemology for the classic debate over direct realism concerning the external world. After suggesting that even externalists might need to abandon epistemological direct realism and outlining a problem that that might cause, I'll close with some very general remarks on how different the epistemic landscape becomes given the way in which externalists understand the distinction between inferentially and noninferentially justified belief. (shrink)

Perception and Reason is a subtle and sophisticated exploration of some of the most fundamental issues concerning perception and its ontological and epistemic connection to belief about the external world. For those of us sympathetic to rather traditional views about the nature of thought and knowledge, the book is particularly intriguing as Brewer wants to defend a version of direct realism that would satisfy those unhappy with contemporary externalist accounts of reference, knowledge, and justification.

This paper is a metaphilosophical investigation into the relationship between science and epistemology. I defend the rather radical view that philosophical questions in epistemology can be answered either a priori or “from the armchair.” In making that case I suggest parallels between how I think one should conceptualize the study of ethical philosophy and how I think one should conceptualize the study of epistemology.

Foundationalism is a view about the structure of knowledge and justification. The heart of the thesis is the claim that if there is any knowledge or justified belief at all, then there is a kind of knowledge and justified belief that does not require inference from something else known or justifiably believed. This Element begins by exploring abstract arguments for foundationalism and against proposed alternatives. It then explores disagreements among foundationalists about how to understand foundational knowledge and justified belief, what (...) is plausibly included in the foundations, and what is required for legitimate inference from foundations to the rest of what we believe. The author argues for the conclusion that one can combine insights captured by different versions of foundationalism by making a distinction between ideal justification and justification that falls short of that ideal. (shrink)

_Philosophy Through Film_ offers a uniquely engaging and effective approach to introductory philosophy by combining an anthology of classical and contemporary philosophical readings with a discussion of philosophical concepts illustrated in popular films. Pairs 50 classical and contemporary readings with popular films - from Monty Python and _The Matrix_ to _Casablanca_ and _A Clockwork Orange_ Addresses key areas in philosophy, including topics in ethics, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mind, free will and determinism, the problem of perception, and philosophy of (...) time Each unit begins with an extensive introduction by the editors and ends with study questions linking readings to films Features chapter by chapter discussion of clips from films that vividly illustrate the critical philosophical arguments and positions raised in the readings. (shrink)

In this paper I explore what I take to be the best hope for a physicalist ontolology of mind from within the framework of a radical empiricism about bothknowledge and thought. That best hope is related to the view that Chalmers calls panprotopsychism. In short, the argument is that a rather radical skepticism about the external world opens the door to what might strike some as odd ontological possibilities concerning the exemplification of phenomenal properties in the brain. The conclusion will (...) be of small comfort to traditional physicalists and, as we shall see, it is in the end, probably misleading to characterize the view as a version of physicalism at all. (shrink)

For traditional epistemologists like myself the rise in popularity of externalist epistemologies has made philosophical life more than a little difficult. The debate between internalist and externalist analyses of knowledge and justification has implications that range far beyond the immediate topic in dispute—the nature of knowledge and justified belief. This paper was written for a conference titled "Can Epistemology Be Unified?" Whether or not it can be unified, it certainly is not at the present time. To say that a field (...) of philosophy is unified is not, of course, to say that there is universal agreement on the answers to fundamental questions—if unification required that, then no field of philosophy would ever be unified. It is enough for epistemology to be unified that epistemologists recognize the legitimacy or philosophical interest of the same kinds of questions and recognize the legitimacy of the same general philosophical methodology. Both internalists and externalists are indeed addressing a common question when they ask about the nature of knowledge and justified belief, when the ask, that is, metaepistemological questions. Moreover, as far as I can tell, in attempting to answer metaepistemological questions, epistemologists employ more or less the classic methodology of analytic philosophy—analyses of epistemic concepts seek necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of epistemic concepts, and proposals are evaluated with the thought experiments that have been the stock in trade of analytic philosophy for centuries. The field of metaepistemology is unified. If the externalist's metaepistemology were correct, however, we would need to rethink the entire conceptual framework within which philosophers have addressed a host of epistemological and even metaphysical issues. If paradigm externalists were correct, philosophers, qua philosophers, should stop asking certain questions they used to find very interesting and should even abandon certain methods of doing philosophy. In this paper I am primarily interested in the implications of an externalist epistemology for the classic debate over direct realism concerning the external world. After suggesting that even externalists might need to abandon epistemological direct realism and outlining a problem that that might cause, I'll close with some very general remarks on how different the epistemic landscape becomes given the way in which externalists understand the distinction between inferentially and noninferentially justified belief. (shrink)

The position Lehrer defends in this paper is an original and subtle attempt to penetrate some of the most fundamental issues with which serious epistemologists and philosophers of mind are concerned. Lehrer’s focus is the notion of a self-presenting state, a state that can be “apprehended through itself.” In these brief comments I’ll focus only on some of Lehrer’s claims. I’ll begin with what Lehrer calls the problems of representation and subjectivity for the doctrine that there exist self-presenting sates. In (...) an attempt to enlist Hume as an ally against the doctrine of exemplarization, I’ll make one very brief historical observation about Hume and representation. I’ll then close with my primary concern about the concept of exemplarization, a concern rooted in the need to make a distinction between representation that is conventional and representation that is not. (shrink)

The position Lehrer defends in this paper is an original and subtle attempt to penetrate some of the most fundamental issues with which serious epistemologists and philosophers of mind are concerned. Lehrer’s focus is the notion of a self-presenting state, a state that can be “apprehended through itself.” In these brief comments I’ll focus only on some of Lehrer’s claims. I’ll begin with what Lehrer calls the problems of representation and subjectivity for the doctrine that there exist self-presenting sates. In (...) an attempt to enlist Hume as an ally against the doctrine of exemplarization, I’ll make one very brief historical observation about Hume and representation. I’ll then close with my primary concern about the concept of exemplarization, a concern rooted in the need to make a distinction between representation that is conventional and representation that is not. (shrink)

In this paper I shall argue that the kind of positivism influenced by radical empiricism has the resources to develop a reductionist program that still allows thought to reach beyond what is given in experience. In reaching this conclusion I also argue that it was always important for the positivist to distinguish limits on what can be verified from limits on what can be meaningfully thought.

In this discussion of Sosa's second volume on reflective knowledge, I focus on the question of whether Sosa's account of knowledge is flawed for failing to capture a connection between possessing knowledge and gaining assurance of truth. In particular, I worry that if there is no more to reflective knowledge than apt belief about apt belief, where the understanding of aptness is the same at both the first and the second level, Sosa hasn't given us a way of gaining philosophically (...) satisfying knowledge. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that there are excellent reasons to embrace nonrelational (adverbial) analyses of sensations and intentional states. I shall further argue, however, that the epistemology of experience requires that we recognize at least one conscious state that is genuinely relational—awareness or acquaintance. It is through the relational state of being acquainted with non-relational mental states that one can end a regress of justification.

Mill's views in epistemology were very much the culmination of radical British empiricism, and its natural transition to certain forms of logical positivism. This paper involves an overview and critical evaluation of Mill's foundationalism, his views on inductive reasoning and attempt to “reduce” deductive reasoning to inductive reasoning, his attempt to solve the epistemological problems of perception by reducing talk of physical objects to talk about the permanent possibility of sensations (his phenomenalism), his views on knowledge of necessary truths, and (...) his famous “methods” for establishing truths about causal connection. (shrink)