It's OK to Make Mistakes: Against the Fixed Point Thesis

Episteme 16 (2):175-185 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Can we make mistakes about what rationality requires? A natural answer is that we can, since it is a platitude that rational belief does not require truth; it is possible for a belief to be rational and mistaken, and this holds for any subject matter at all. However, the platitude causes trouble when applied to rationality itself. The possibility of rational mistakes about what rationality requires generates a puzzle. When combined with two further plausible claims – the enkratic principle, and the claim that rational requirements apply universally – we get the result that rationality generates inconsistent requirements. One popular and attractive solution to the puzzle denies that it is possible to make rational mistakes about what rationality requires. I show why (contra Titelbaum (2015b), and Littlejohn (2015)) this solution is doomed to fail.

Similar books and articles

Yet another hierarchy theorem.Max Kubierschky - 2000 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (2):627-640.
Yet Another Hierarchy Theorem.Max Kubierschky - 2000 - Journal of Symbolic Logic 65 (2):627-640.
Supervaluation fixed-point logics of truth.Philip Kremer & Alasdair Urquhart - 2008 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (5):407-440.
Note on Some Fixed Point Constructions in Provability Logic.Per Lindström - 2006 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (3):225-230.
A fixed point theorem for o-minimal structures.Kam-Chau Wong - 2003 - Mathematical Logic Quarterly 49 (6):598.
The Fixed Point Property in Modal Logic.Lorenzo Sacchetti - 2001 - Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 42 (2):65-86.
On the λY calculus.Rick Statman - 2004 - Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 130 (1-3):325-337.
Comparing fixed-point and revision theories of truth.Philip Kremer - 2009 - Journal of Philosophical Logic 38 (4):363-403.
Guarded quantification in least fixed point logic.Gregory McColm - 2004 - Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13 (1):61-110.

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-09-07

Downloads
818 (#17,701)

6 months
129 (#25,868)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Claire Field
University of Stirling

Citations of this work

Should we be dogmatically conciliatory?Clayton Littlejohn - 2020 - Philosophical Studies 177 (5):1381-1398.
Higher-Order Evidence.Daniel Whiting - 2021 - Analysis 80 (4):789-807.
Embracing Incoherence.Claire Field - 2021 - In Nick Hughes (ed.), Epistemic Dilemmas. Oxford University Press. pp. 1-29.

View all 10 citations / Add more citations

References found in this work

Why be rational.Niko Kolodny - 2005 - Mind 114 (455):509-563.
Higher‐Order Evidence and the Limits of Defeat.Maria Lasonen-Aarnio - 2014 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 88 (2):314-345.
Normative requirements.John Broome - 1999 - Ratio 12 (4):398–419.
Stop Making Sense? On a Puzzle about Rationality.Littlejohn Clayton - 2018 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research:257-272.

View all 23 references / Add more references