David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Synthese 187 (2):321-341 (2012)
The debate concerning the role of intuitions in philosophy has been characterized by a fundamental disagreement between two main camps. The first, the autonomists, hold that, due to the use in philosophical investigation of appeals to intuition, most of the central questions of philosophy can in principle be answered by philosophical investigation and argument without relying on the sciences. The second, the naturalists, deny the possibility of a priori knowledge and are skeptical of the role of intuition in providing evidence in philosophical inquiry. In spite of the seemingly stark and deep disagreement between the autonomist and the naturalist, in this paper I will attempt to suggest that there is a way to mount a partial defense of intuition-based philosophical practice on naturalist grounds. As will be seen, doing so will require a number of concessions that will satisfy few autonomists while simultaneously disappointing those naturalists who might have thought that all notions of the a priori had been successfully laid to rest. However, I will argue that the account proposed here will preserve those features of traditional philosophical practice that matter most and better explain the history of successes and failures of that practice, thus answering the worries of the autonomist, and that the rejection of the No A Priori Thesis attendant with the account presented here is indeed demanded by the current theories of our best scientific understanding of the mind, thus pacifying the rabid naturalistic critic of any version of apriorism.
|Keywords||A priori Intution Naturalism Modularity|
|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
Scott Atran (1998). Taxonomic Ranks, Generic Species, and Core Memes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (4):593-604.
Jerome Barkow, Leda Cosmides & John Tooby (eds.) (1992). The Adapted Mind: Evolutionary Psychology and the Generation of Culture. Oxford University Press.
Clark H. Barrett & R. Kurzban (2006). Modularity in Cognition: Framing the Debate. Psychological Review 113:628-647.
Laurence BonJour (1998). In Defense of Pure Reason. Cambridge University Press.
Peter Carruthers & George Botterill (1999). Philosophy of Psychology. Cambridge University Press.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Bernard Linsky & Edward N. Zalta (1995). Naturalized Platonism Versus Platonized Naturalism. Journal of Philosophy 92 (10):525-555.
Dan McArthur (2005). Normative Naturalism and the Relativised a Priori. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 36 (2):331 - 350.
Janet Levin (2004). The Evidential Status of Philosophical Intuition. Philosophical Studies 121 (3):193-224.
James R. O.’Shea (2011). How to Be a Kantian and a Naturalist About Human Knowledge. Journal of Philosophical Research 36:327-359.
Michael Dummett (1982). Frege and Kant on Geometry. Inquiry 25 (2):233 – 254.
Ernest Sosa (1996). Rational Intuition: Bealer on its Nature and Epistemic Status. Philosophical Studies 81 (2-3):151--162.
Lisa Warenski (2009). Naturalism, Fallibilism, and the a Priori. Philosophical Studies 142 (3):403 - 426.
Ellen R. Klein (1992). Is 'Normative Naturalism' an Oxymoron? Philosophical Psychology 5 (3):287 – 297.
George Bealer (1987). The Philosophical Limits of Scientific Essentialism. Philosophical Perspectives 1:289-365.
Added to index2009-12-06
Total downloads17 ( #142,419 of 1,696,808 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #187,594 of 1,696,808 )
How can I increase my downloads?