Synthese 180:357-389 (2011)
|Abstract||Both traditional and naturalistic epistemologists have long assumed that the examination of human psychology has no relevance to the prescriptive goal of traditional epistemology, that of providing first-person guidance in determining the truth. Contrary to both, I apply insights about the psychology of human perception and concept-formation to a very traditional epistemological project: the foundationalist approach to the epistemic regress problem. I argue that direct realism about perception can help solve the regress problem and support a foundationalist account of justification, but only if it is supplemented by an abstractionist theory of concept-formation, the view that it is possible to abstract concepts directly from the empirically given. Critics of direct realism like Laurence BonJour are correct that an account of direct perception by itself does not provide an adequate account of justification. However a direct realist account of perception can inform the needed theory of concept-formation, and leading critics of abstractionism like McDowell and Sellars, direct realists about perception themselves, fail to appreciate the ways in which their own views about perception help fill gaps in earlier accounts of abstractionism. Recognizing this undercuts both their objections to abstractionism and (therefore) their objections to foundationalism.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Phillip John Meadows (forthcoming). On A. D. Smith's Constancy Based Defence of Direct Realism. Philosophical Studies.
Robert G. Hudson (2000). Perceiving Empirical Objects Directly. Erkenntnis 52 (3):357-371.
Dan D. Crawford (1982). Are There Mental Inferences in Direct Perceptions? American Philosophical Quarterly 19 (January):83-92.
Michael Huemer (2000). Direct Realism and the Brain-in-a-Vat Argument. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61 (2):397-413.
Douglas J. McDermid (2001). What is Direct Perceptual Knowledge? A Fivefold Confusion. Grazer Philosophische Studien 62 (1):1-16.
J. R. Smythies & Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (1997). An Empirical Refutation of the Direct Realist Theory of Perception. Inquiry 40 (4):437-438.
N. M. L. Nathan (2005). Direct Realism: Proximate Causation and the Missing Object. Acta Analytica 20 (36):3-6.
Michael Huemer (2001). Skepticism and the Veil of Perception. Lanham: Rowman &Amp; Littlefield.
Nicholas Wolterstorff (2006). What Sort of Epistemological Realist Was Thomas Reid? Journal of Scottish Philosophy 4 (2):111-124.
Added to index2009-05-03
Total downloads68 ( #12,937 of 549,080 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,333 of 549,080 )
How can I increase my downloads?