David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
The Owl of Minerva 42 (1-2):1–18 (2010-11)
Rejection of the philosophical relevance of history of philosophy remains pronounced within contemporary analytic philosophy. The two main reasons for this rejection presuppose that strict deduction is both necessary and sufficient for rational justification. However, this justificatory ideal of scientia holds only within strictly formal domains. This is confirmed by a neglected non-sequitur in van Fraassen’s original defence of ‘Constructive Empiricism’. Conversely, strict deduction is insufficient for rational justification in non-formal, substantive domains of inquiry. In non-formal, substantive domains, rational justification is also, in part, ineliminably social and historical, for sound reasons Hegel was the first to articulate. Demonstrating this involves considering closely two key reasons many analytic philosophers (still) reject the philosophical relevance of historical philosophy (§2). As specific example of presumed, though fallacious, deductivism about justification in the non-formal domain of empirical knowledge is found in van Fraassen’s (1980) defence of ‘Constructive Empiricism’ (§3). These first two sections contend that philosophical consideration of historical philosophy is required to properly formulate key issues in non-formal domains. I next consider the further issues involved rational justification in non-formal domains, issues quintessentially posed by the Pyrrhonian Dilemma of the Criterion (§4). Finally I consider what kind of history of philosophy is required for cogent philosophy in non-formal domains (§5).
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kenneth R. Westphal (2011). ‘Urteilskraft, Gegenseitige Anerkennung Und Rationale Rechtfertigung’. In Hans-Dieter Klein (ed.), Ethik als prima philosophia? Königshausen & Neumann
Kenneth R. Westphal (2011). ‘Self-Consciousness, Anti-Cartesianism and Cognitive Semantics in Hegel’s 1807 Phenomenology’. In S. Houlgate & M. Baur (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Hegel, pp. 68–90. Blackwell
Kenneth R. Westphal (2009). Mutual Recognition and Rational Justification in Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Dialogue 48 (04):753-99.
Tom Rockmore (2004). Hegel, Idealism, and Analytic Philosophy. Yale University Press.
Antonella Corradini, Sergio Galvan & E. J. Lowe (eds.) (2005). Analytic Philosophy Without Naturalism. Routledge.
Hans-Johann Glock (2008). Analytic Philosophy and History: A Mismatch? Mind 117 (468):867-897.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2011). ‘Kant’s [Moral] Constructivism and Rational Justification’. In Pihlström & Williams Baiasu (ed.), Politics and Metaphysics in Kant. Wales University Press
Kenneth R. Westphal (2010). Hegel, Russell, and the Foundations of Philosophy. In Angelica Nuzzo (ed.), Hegel and the Analytical Tradition. Continuum
G. Randolph Mayes (2000). Resisting Explanation. Argumentation 14 (4):361-380.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2005). ‘Kant, Hegel, and Determining Our Duties’. Jahrbuch für Recht and Ethik/Annual Review of Law & Ethics 13:335-354.
Kenneth R. Westphal (2011). ‘Kant’s Cognitive Semantics, Newton’s Rule Four of Philosophy and Scientific Realism’. Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 63:27-49.
Béatrice Longuenesse (2007). Hegel's Critique of Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.
Daniel Andler (2000). The Undefinability of Analytic Philosophy. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2000:267-285.
Added to index2012-03-11
Total downloads15 ( #161,941 of 1,699,564 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #128,702 of 1,699,564 )
How can I increase my downloads?