Philosophical Review 112 (4):447-482 (2003)
Why, when asking oneself whether to believe that p, must one immediately recognize that this question is settled by, and only by, answering the question whether p is true? Truth is not an optional end for first-personal doxastic deliberation, providing an instrumental or extrinsic reason that an agent may take or leave at will. Otherwise there would be an inferential step between discovering the truth with respect to p and determining whether to believe that p, involving a bridge premise that it is good (in whichever sense of good one likes, moral, prudential, aesthetic, allthings-considered, etc.) to believe the truth with respect to p. But there is no such gap between the two questions within the first-personal deliberative perspective; the question whether to believe that p seems to collapse into the question whether p is true.
|Keywords||Aiming, Metaethics, Dissertation, Belief|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Doxastic Correctness.Pascal Engel - 2013 - Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 87 (1):199-216.
No Norm Needed: On the Aim of Belief.Asbjørn Steglich-Petersen - 2006 - Philosophical Quarterly 56 (225):499–516.
If You Justifiably Believe That You Ought to Φ, You Ought to Φ.Jonathan Way & Daniel Whiting - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies:1-23.
Similar books and articles
Explaining the Value of Truth.Allen Coates - 2009 - American Philosophical Quarterly 46 (2):105-115.
Does Belief Aim at the Truth?Daniel Whiting - 2012 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 93 (2):279-300.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads385 ( #6,060 of 2,146,457 )
Recent downloads (6 months)24 ( #13,616 of 2,146,457 )
How can I increase my downloads?
There are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.