David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):75-93 (2012)
This paper develops and defends a coherentist account of reasons. I develop three core ideas for this defense: a distinction between basic reasons and noninferential justification, the plausibility of the neglected argument against first philosophy, and an emergent account of reasons. These three ideas form the backbone for a credible coherentist view of reasons. I work toward this account by formulating and explaining the basic reasons dilemma. This dilemma reveals a wavering attitude that coherentists have had toward basic reasons. More importantly, the basic reasons dilemma focuses our attention on the central problems that afflict coherentist views of basic beliefs. By reflecting on the basic reasons dilemma, I formulate three desiderata that any viable coherentist account of basic beliefs must satisfy. I argue that the account on offer satisfies these desiderata
|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
Robert Nozick (1981). Philosophical Explanations. Harvard University Press.
Timothy Williamson (2000). Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford University Press.
John Rawls (1971/2005). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
W. V. Quine (1960). Word and Object. The MIT Press.
Nelson Goodman (1983). Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. Harvard University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
William G. Lycan (2012). Explanationist Rebuttals (Coherentism Defended Again). Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):5-20.
William Roche (2012). Witness Agreement and the Truth-Conduciveness of Coherentist Justification. Southern Journal of Philosophy 50 (1):151-169.
William Roche (2013). On the Truth-Conduciveness of Coherence. Erkenntnis 79 (S3):1-19.
Similar books and articles
John Skorupski (2009). The Unity and Diversity of Reasons. In Simon Robertson (ed.), Spheres of Reason. Oxford University Press
Christopher Essert (2012). A Dilemma for Protected Reasons. Law and Philosophy 31 (1):49-75.
Manuel Vargas (2009). Reasons and Real Selves. Ideas Y Valores 58 (141):67-84.
John Horty (2007). Reasons as Defaults. Philosophers' Imprint 7 (3):1-28.
G. F. Schueler (2003). Reasons and Purposes: Human Rationality and the Teleological Explanation of Action. Oxford University Press.
Eric Vogelstein (2012). Subjective Reasons. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (2):239-257.
Ralph Wedgwood (2009). Intrinsic Values and Reasons for Action. In Ernest Sosa & Enrique Villanueva (eds.), Metaethics. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 342-363.
Andrew Reisner (2007). Evidentialism and the Numbers Game. Theoria 73 (4):304-316.
Errol Lord (2010). Having Reasons and the Factoring Account. Philosophical Studies 149 (3):283 - 296.
David K. Henderson (1995). One Naturalized Epistemological Argument Against Coherentist Accounts of Empirical Knowledge. Erkenntnis 43 (2):199 - 227.
Douglas W. Portmore (2012). Imperfect Reasons and Rational Options. Noûs 46 (1):24 - 60.
Simon Robertson (2008). Not so Enticing Reasons. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (3):263 - 277.
Ulrike Heuer (2010). Reasons and Impossibility. Philosophical Studies 147 (2):235 - 246.
Antony Hatzistavrou (2012). Motivation, Reconsideration and Exclusionary Reasons. Ratio Juris 25 (3):318-342.
Added to index2012-03-02
Total downloads30 ( #105,336 of 1,726,249 )
Recent downloads (6 months)7 ( #99,332 of 1,726,249 )
How can I increase my downloads?