David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Metaphilosophy 43 (5):567-591 (2012)
Widespread and lasting consensus has not been philosophy's fate. Indeed, one of philosophy's most striking features is its ability to accommodate “not only different answers to philosophical questions” but also “total disagreement on what questions are philosophical” (Rorty 1995, 58). It is therefore hardly surprising that philosophers' responses to this metaphilosophical predicament have been similarly varied. This article considers two recent diagnoses of philosophical diversity: Kornblith and Rescher (respectively) claim that taking philosophical disagreement seriously does not lead to metaphilosophical scepticism. The article argues that their confidence is misplaced in so far as both wrongly assume that ordinary, first-order philosophical practice and second-order metaphilosophical reflection are separate enterprises. We can say that the universe consists of a substance, and this substance we will call “atoms,” or else we will call it “monads.” Democritus called it atoms. Leibniz called it monads. Fortunately, the two men never met, or there would have been a very dull argument. (Allen 1997, 171) When will philosophers learn to be less pretentious and arrogant in their claims? One would imagine that the philosophic experiences of twenty-five centuries would have taught them the fallacy of self-esteem! (Schilpp 1935, 233)
|Keywords||pluralism modesty disagreement epistemic peers metaphilosophy|
|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
Robert Nozick (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press.
Richard Rorty (1999). Philosophy and Social Hope. Penguin Books.
Hilary Kornblith (2002). Knowledge and its Place in Nature. Oxford University Press.
Richard Feldman (2006). Epistemological Puzzles About Disagreement. In Stephen Hetherington (ed.), Epistemology Futures. Oxford University Press 216-236.
Richard E. Nisbett (2003). The Geography of Thought How Asians and Westerners Think Differently--And Why. Monograph Collection (Matt - Pseudo).
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Dennis Potter (2013). Religious Disagreement: Internal and External. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 74 (1):21-31.
Stacie Friend & Peter Ludlow (2003). Disagreement and Deference: Is Diversity of Opinion a Precondition for Thought? Philosophical Perspectives 17 (1):115–139.
Barbara J. Thayer-Bacon (2010). Homogeneity and Diversity: Comparing Japanese and American Perspectives on Harmony and Disagreement. Ethics and Education 4 (2):153-162.
John K. Davis (2010). An Alternative to Relativism. Philosophical Topics 38 (2):17-37.
Charles Hampden-Turner & Ginger Chih (2010). Dilemmas of Diversity: A New Paradigm of Integrating Diversity. World Futures 66 (3 & 4):192 – 218.
Charles Hampden-Turner & Ginger Chih (2011). Dilemmas Of Diversity: A New Paradigm of Integrating Diversity. World Futures 66 (3):192-218.
Brian Ribeiro (2011). Philosophy and Disagreement. Critica 43 (127):3-25.
Torfinn Thomesen Huvenes (2014). Disagreement Without Error. Erkenntnis 79 (1):143-154.
Kristie Lyn Miller (2006). Issues in Theoretical Diversity: Persistence, Composition, and Time. Springer.
John MacFarlane (2007). Relativism and Disagreement. Philosophical Studies 132 (1):17-31.
Folke Tersman (2006). Moral Disagreement. Cambridge University Press.
Andrew Lugg (1978). Disagreement in Science. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 9 (2):276-292.
Added to index2012-10-06
Total downloads21 ( #135,238 of 1,725,873 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #92,969 of 1,725,873 )
How can I increase my downloads?