Epistemology

This paper tries to disentangle two aims of inquiry in philosophy. I discuss some cases where these aims seem to come apart in the metaphysics of science and then draw some broader conclusions about philosophical inquiry. -/- (Committed to: S. Goldberg and M. Walker, Attitude in Philosophy, Oxford University Press.).

Open peer commentary on the article “Enacting the “Body” of Neurophenomenology: Off-Radar First-Person Methodologies in Pragmatics of Experiencing” by Jakub Petri & Artur Gromadzki. Abstract: Petri and Gromadzki are attentive to the need for the study of experience to incorporate new methodologies for the development and growth of neurophenomenology. In this commentary I would like to address two main issues: our position as individuals and as researchers in the neurophenomenological program and the importance of following the path of thick phenomenology (...) in order to meet this challenge. (shrink)

Following Ballantyne, we can distinguish between descriptive and regulative epistemology. Whereas descriptive epistemology analyzes epistemic categories such as knowledge, justified belief, or evidence, regulative epistemology attempts to guide our thinking. In this paper, we argue that regulative epistemologists should focus their attention on what we call epistemic prudence. Our argument proceeds as follows: First, we lay out an objection to virtue-based regulative epistemology that is analogous to the no-guidance objection to virtue ethics. According to this objection, virtue-based regulative epistemology cannot (...) offer us useful guidance in our deliberations, because an abstract knowledge of virtue does not tell us what we should do here and now, especially in hard cases. We respond to this objection by showing that our making good epistemic decisions cannot simply be a matter of our following the right epistemic rules. In order to reliably inquire and deliberate well, we need epistemic prudence. Thus, while virtue-based regulative epistemology fails to determine how we should inquire and resolve deliberation here and now, this is also true of norm-based regulative epistemology. The upshot of this argument is that regulative epistemologists should focus their attention on understanding the nature of epistemic prudence and on understanding how we can promote its development in ourselves and others. (shrink)

Hinge epistemology and Bayesianism are two prominent approaches in contemporary epistemology, but the relationship between these approaches has not been systematically studied. This paper formalizes the central commitments of hinge epistemology in a Bayesian framework and argues for the following two theses: (1) many of the types of claims that are treated as paradigmatic hinges in the hinge epistemology literature, such as the claim that there exists an external world of physical objects, are not capable of enabling rational inquiry, even (...) though this is typically regarded as a central property of hinges; (2) the standard Bayesian story of how rational inquiry proceeds is incorrect or at best incomplete. (shrink)

In order to serve their citizens well, democracies must secure a number of epistemic goods. Take the truth, for example. If a democratic government wants to help its impoverished citizens improve their financial position, then elected officials will need to know what policies truly help those living in poverty. Because truth has such an important role in political decision-making, many defenders of democracy have highlighted the ways in which democratic procedures can lead to the truth. But there are also a (...) number of other epistemic goods – goods like evidence, intellectual virtue, epistemic justice, and empathetic understanding – that democracies can benefit from producing as well. In this teaching and learning guide, I chart a course through the literature that considers the importance of truth, along with these other political goods, for the healthy functioning of democracies. (shrink)

Since the early 20th century, two new disciplines emerged in the tradition of analytic philosophy: meta-ethics and political epistemology. Nevertheless, debates on such questions go back to the ancient Greeks and, in particular, to the debates between Plato and Protagoras. This article elucidates the controversy between Plato and the influential sophist Protagoras from the perspective of contemporary meta-ethics and political epistemology. It argues that the main motivation of Plato’s philosophical endeavors is to overcome Protagoras’s skeptical claims that no moral facts (...) and no moral knowledge applicable to political issues exist. The paper defends the thesis that there exists a deep disagreement between Protagoras and Plato on the existence of moral facts and moral knowledge. A deep disagreement is a disagreement that cannot be resolved through the use of reasons and arguments. Applying the foundationalist approach Robert J. Fogelin proposes in his seminal paper “The Logic of Deep Disagreements”, this article argues that the deep disagreement between Protagoras and Plato exists because their political thought is based on “underlying principles” that clash. While Plato’s political philosophy rests on his religious and theological convictions, the political thought of Protagoras is based on his skepticism, relativism, and agnosticism. (shrink)

The article describes the role of deterministic principles in epistemology derivative of Spinoza's works on metaphysics and determinism in the mind. The article however exemplifies the organization of the mind into three parts of categorical determinism identified as the external or metaphysical world, the internal or processing mind, and the conscience. In elaborating between the phenomenalism between three distinct parts of human psyche "Determinism in Epistemology" identifies the acute reasoning and understanding cooperative between each part and the portrayal of intelligence (...) and conscience thought. Ultimately the articles argues an indeterminate prospect of the internal mind as all thought and action is derived from externally provided demonstration. (shrink)

The basic question of this article is: “What is understanding?” The objective is to initiate a process and a state of self-reflexivity which might best be defined as an understanding of understanding. In this self-referential philosophical setting, it cannot be our aim to attempt to produce any (alleged) final answers, because cognitive self-referentiality, taken as a source principle of mind, is without beginning and end. However, it is feasible to explore possibilities of a continuously increasing convergence and insight regarding the (...) objective. In addition, the basic question of an understanding of understanding is taken into consideration from a transcultural angle here. Direct samples of ancient Greek, later German as well as pre-modern Chinese philosophies are included in one systematic context here. The topic is developed in four basic steps. At first, a semantic and philosophical analysis of the English word “understanding” is developed in perspective of philo- sophical-anthropological thoughts by J. G. Herder, Aristotle, and the anthropo-cosmic foundations of the ancient Confucian classic Liji . In a second step, the meaning of “understanding” is analysed in the extended sense of a philosophical metaphor. Selective references are made to Kongzi , Martin Heidegger, Plato, and Zhuangzi . In a third step, the discussion of the semantics of the German philosophical terms “Verstehen” and “Verstand” is explored on the basis of the preceding reflections. In the fourth segment of this contribution, further references are made to the Daodejing and to a model of the structure of consciousness and understanding in the context of Wang Yangming’s philosophy. From various angles of different times and places, the problem of an understanding of understanding points to the most basic layers of human existence, personal experience, human cultures, and civilisations. (shrink)

While recent history has seen significant debate concerning the nature and extension of essence, comparatively little attention has been paid to the epistemology of essence. This is strange, as, plausibly, what answers we give to the metaphysical questions about essence will (or should) be partially constrained by our essence epistemology. Here, I aim to go some way towards filling this lacuna. In particular, I here argue that there is no plausible epistemic story available for non-modal accounts of essence. In particular, (...) existing accounts of essence epistemology cannot explain how we are able to know that something is genuinely essential, rather than merely necessary. One consequence is that modal accounts of essence – which only needs to supply an epistemology for a non-hyperintensional notion – look that much more plausible. (shrink)

In Oedipus at Colonus Sophocles shows that neither individual reason nor piety are singularly sufficient for either individual happiness or the common good. Human understanding is dependent on a decentering of the individual, such that the reason of the wider community, including that of the gods, can augment the limitations of individual perspective. Sophocles shows not only the dependence of faith and reason on one another, but the degree to which both are dependent on reciprocal good will within a community.

While growing empirical evidence suggests a continuity between human and non-human psychology, many philosophers still think that only humans can act and form beliefs rationally. In this paper, we challenge this claim. We first clarify the notion of rationality. We then focus on the rationality of beliefs and argue that, in the relevant sense, humans are not the only rational animals. We do so by first distinguishing between unreflective and reflective responsiveness to epistemic reasons in belief formation and revision. We (...) argue that unreflective responsiveness is clearly within the reach of many animals. We then defend that a key demonstration of reflective responsiveness would be the ability to respond to undermining defeaters. We end by presenting some empirical evidence that suggests that some animal species are capable of processing these defeaters, which would entail that even by the strictest standards, humans are not the only rational animals. (shrink)

Aby Warburg’s Bilderatlas Mnemosyne makes use of a very specific form of the genre and medium of atlas. Instead of projecting geographical knowledge onto a two-dimensional plane as the conventional cartographic map does, his atlas consists of a number of plates each of which is a configuration of reproduced images, which are collected under a common heading or leitmotif. Gertrude Bing later supplemented these headings with a short explanation, - for example: “Pathos of Suffering in energetic...

In The Concept of Model Alain Badiou establishes a new logical ’concept of model’. Translated for the first time into English, the work is accompanied by an exclusive interview with Badiou in which he elaborates on the connections between his early and most recent work-for which the concept of model remains seminal.

In this discussion, I engage the politics of intention to explore how structural racism structures the production of meaning and the practice of reason. Building on María Lugones's analysis of intention formation as a form of practical reasoning, I explore the reasoning at work during the 2011 Stand Your Ground (SYG) hearing of black survivor of domestic violence, Marissa Alexander, to contend that structural racism—in this case, both intimate personal violence and intimate state violence against black women—enacts race/gender domination through (...) projecting constructed intentions onto black women as a strategy to rationalize punishing black women. I also discuss two key black feminist critiques of reason—Patricia Hill Collins’ discussion of “controlling images” (2000) and Michelle Cliff's concept of the “mythic mind” (1982)—to propose controlling intentions as a framework to theorize how structural racism produces fictive intentions used to rationalize the criminal punishment of survival and justify that outcome as common sense. (shrink)