Graduate studies at Western
Ghent University (2012)
|Abstract||This dissertation is on infinite regress arguments in philosophy. Its main goals are to explain what such arguments from many distinct philosophical debates have in common, and to provide guidelines for using and evaluating them. Two theories are reviewed: the Paradox Theory and the Failure Theory. According to the Paradox Theory, infinite regress arguments can be used to refute an existentially or universally quantified statement (e.g. to refute the statement that at least one discussion is settled, or the statement that discussions are settled only if there is an agreed-upon criterion to settle them). According to the Failure Theory, infinite regress arguments can be used to demonstrate that a certain solution fails to solve an existentially or universally quantified problem (e.g. to demonstrate that a certain solution fails to settle all discussions, or that it fails to settle even one discussion). In the literature, the Paradox Theory is fairly well-developed, and this dissertation provides the Failure Theory with the same tools.|
|Keywords||regress argument failure paradox infinity vicious supertask schema logic philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jan Willem Wieland (2013). Infinite Regress Arguments. Acta Analytica 28 (1):95-109.
Ricki Leigh Bliss (2013). Viciousness and the Structure of Reality. Philosophical Studies 166 (2):399-418.
Jan Willem Wieland (2012). Regress Argument Reconstruction. Argumentation 26 (4):489-503.
Yuri Cath (2013). Regarding a Regress. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 94 (3):358-388.
Thomas Grundmann (1999). BonJour's Self-Defeating Argument for Coherentism. Erkenntnis 50 (2-3):463-479.
Anna-Sofia Maurin, Infinite Regress - Virtue or Vice? Hommage à Wlodek.
Jan Willem Wieland (2011). On Gratton's Infinite Regress Arguments. [REVIEW] Argumentation 25 (1):107-113.
Jan Willem Wieland (2011). The Sceptic's Tools: Circularity and Infinite Regress. Philosophical Papers 40 (3):359-369.
Paul Kabay (2005). An Infinite Temporal Regress is Compatible with the Doctrine of Creatio Originans. International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 57 (2):123 - 138.
Daniel Howard-Snyder & E. J. Coffman (2007). Three Arguments Against Foundationalism: Arbitrariness, Epistemic Regress, and Existential Support. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 36 (4):535-564.
Eric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (1999). Where the Regress Argument Still Goes Wrong: Reply to Knowles. Analysis 59 (4):321-327.
Rögnvaldur Ingthorsson (2012). The Regress of Pure Powers Revisited. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (2).
Added to index2012-08-23
Total downloads56 ( #21,366 of 738,079 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #14,909 of 738,079 )
How can I increase my downloads?