David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Research 28 (Supplement):23-34 (2003)
Two conceptions of a priori methods and assumptions can be distinguished. First, there are the assumptions and methods accepted prior to a given inquiry. Second, there are innate assumptions and methods. For each of these two types of a priori methods and assumptions, we can also allow cases in which one starts with something that is a priori and is justified in reaching a new belief or procedure without making any appeal to new experiential data. But we should not suppose there is some further sort of a priori explained in terms of some other notion of justification. If we try to construct a notion of the a priori by considering ways in which knowledge, belief, or reasoning might be though to be directly a priori, via direct insight, inability to imagine something false, intentions about use of language, and the language faculty, the resulting conception of the a prior in each of these cases reduces to either of the first two conceptions
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Joshua C. Thurow (2009). The a Priori Defended: A Defense of the Generality Argument. Philosophical Studies 146 (2):273-289.
Joshua C. Thurow (2013). Does Cognitive Science Show Belief in God to Be Irrational? The Epistemic Consequences of the Cognitive Science of Religion. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):77-98.
Joshua C. Thurow (2009). The a Priori Defended: A Defense of the Generality Argument. Philosophical Studies 146 (2):273 - 289.
Similar books and articles
Houston Smit (2010). Apriority, Reason, and Induction in Hume. Journal of the History of Philosophy 48 (3):313-343.
Tuomas E. Tahko (2011). A Priori and A Posteriori: A Bootstrapping Relationship. Metaphysica 12 (2):151-164.
Albert Casullo (2003). A Priori Justification. Oxford University Press.
Robin Jeshion (2000). On the Obvious. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (2):333-355.
Robin Jeshion (2000). On the Obvious. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (2):333 - 355.
Jessica F. Leech (2010). 'Creationism' and the Contingent a Priori. Ratio 23 (2):168-183.
Tuomas E. Tahko (2008). A New Definition of A Priori Knowledge: In Search of a Modal Basis. Metaphysica 9 (2):57-68.
Hamid Vahid (1999). A Priori Knowledge, Experience and Defeasibility. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 7 (2):173 – 188.
John Turri (2011). Contingent A Priori Knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 83 (2):327-344.
Darren Bradley (2011). Justified Concepts and the Limits of the Conceptual Approach to the A Priori. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 11 (3):267-274.
Lisa Warenski (2010). Naturalistic Epistemologies and A Priori Justification. In Marcin Milkowski & Konrad Kalmont-Taminski (eds.), Beyond Description: Naturalism and Normativity. College Publications
Carl Ginet (2010). Self-Evidence. Logos and Episteme 54 (2):325-352.
Jeremy Fantl (2003). An Analysis of the a Priori and a Posteriori. Acta Analytica 18 (1-2):43-69.
Pat Manfredi (2000). The Compatibility of a Priori Knowledge and Empirical Defeasibility: A Defense of a Modest a Priori. Southern Journal of Philosophy 38 (S1):179-189.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads61 ( #70,406 of 1,907,551 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #127,204 of 1,907,551 )
How can I increase my downloads?