Grazer Philosophische Studien 83:1-8 (2011)
In The Realm of Reason (2004), Christopher Peacocke develops a “generalized rationalism” concerning, among other things, what it is for someone to be “entitled”, or justified, in forming a given belief. In the course of his discussion, Peacocke offers two arguments to the best explanation that aim to undermine scepticism and establish a justification for our belief in the reliability of sense perception, respectively. If sound, these ambitious arguments would answer some of the oldest and most vexing epistemological problems. In this paper I will evaluate these arguments, concluding that they are inconclusive at best. Despite offering some interestingly original arguments, Peacocke gives us no reason to think that scepticism is false, and that perception is generally reliable.
|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
Christopher Peacocke's The Realm of Reason. [REVIEW]Ralph Wedgwood - 2007 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 74 (3):776-791.
Transcendental Arguments and Scepticism: Answering the Question of Justification.Robert Stern - 2000 - Oxford University Press.
Making Sense of Doubt: Strawson's Anti-Scepticism.John J. Callanan - 2011 - Theoria 77 (3):261-278.
The Epicurean Argument: Determinism and Scepticism.Christopher Hookway - 1989 - Inquiry 32 (1):79 – 94.
Added to index2010-06-19
Total downloads154 ( #30,113 of 2,164,236 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #84,084 of 2,164,236 )
How can I increase my downloads?