Croatian Journal of Philosophy 22 (1):113-127 (2008)
Boghossian claims that we can acquire a priori knowledge by means of a certain form of argument, our grasp of whose premises relies on the existence of implicit definitions. I discuss an objection to his ‘analytic theory of the a priori’. The worry is that in order to employ this kind of argument we must already know its conclusion. Boghossian has responded to this type of objection in recent work, but I argue that his responses are unconvincing. Along the way, I resist Ebert’s reasons for thinking that Boghossian’s argument fails to transmit warrant from its premises to its conclusion
|Keywords||Analytic Philosophy Contemporary Philosophy|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Analyticity and Implicit Definition.Kathrin Glüer - 2003 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 66 (1):37-60.
Transmission of Warrant-Failure and the Notion of Epistemic Analyticity.Philip A. Ebert - 2005 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 83 (4):505 – 521.
An a Posteriori Conception of Analyticity?Åsa Maria Wikforss - 2003 - Grazer Philosophische Studien 66 (1):119-139.
Boghossian's Implicit Definition Template.Ben Baker - 2012 - In Piotr Stalmaszczyk (ed.), Philosophical and Formal Approaches to Linguistic Analysis. Ontos-Verlag. pp. 15.
Analyticity.P. A. Boghossian - 1997 - In B. Hale & C. Wright (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Blackwell. pp. 331-368.
Boghossian's Refutation of Relativism.Christopher M. Caldwell & Majid Amini - 2011 - International Journal for the Study of Skepticism 1 (2):79-103.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads146 ( #32,073 of 2,164,635 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #128,941 of 2,164,635 )
How can I increase my downloads?