The rationalist's dilemma
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2006 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14434 |
Resumo: | In his book In Defense of Pure Reason Laurence BonJour proposed an account of a priori justification which essentially refers to so-called rational insights. Unfortunately, the reader is not equipped with a substantial answer to the question what such rational insights exactly are. And moreover, he is told that this is not an in any way decisive shortcoming of BonJour’s account of a priori justification — at least not a shortcoming which should motivate us to abandon his account. In order to support this thesis, BonJour refers to an analogy between the case of rational insights and the case of consciousness. He points out that we would not give up the use of the notion of consciousness, in spite of the fact that today there is still no satisfying answer to the question what consciousness exactly is. I will argue that the analogy BonJour refers to is in fact a persuasive one and can help him as well as other proponents of the rational-insight account to deal with some prominent objections. But taking the analogy seriously does consequently mean to undermine a favourite rationalist’s thesis: the autonomy claim. I conclude that the rationalist is confronted with a dilemma; he simply cannot have it both ways. |
id |
UFSC-5_264436b9cb8b7582cfd9d558e2192e21 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/14434 |
network_acronym_str |
UFSC-5 |
network_name_str |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
The rationalist's dilemmaThe Rationalist's DilemmaIn his book In Defense of Pure Reason Laurence BonJour proposed an account of a priori justification which essentially refers to so-called rational insights. Unfortunately, the reader is not equipped with a substantial answer to the question what such rational insights exactly are. And moreover, he is told that this is not an in any way decisive shortcoming of BonJour’s account of a priori justification — at least not a shortcoming which should motivate us to abandon his account. In order to support this thesis, BonJour refers to an analogy between the case of rational insights and the case of consciousness. He points out that we would not give up the use of the notion of consciousness, in spite of the fact that today there is still no satisfying answer to the question what consciousness exactly is. I will argue that the analogy BonJour refers to is in fact a persuasive one and can help him as well as other proponents of the rational-insight account to deal with some prominent objections. But taking the analogy seriously does consequently mean to undermine a favourite rationalist’s thesis: the autonomy claim. I conclude that the rationalist is confronted with a dilemma; he simply cannot have it both ways.Em seu livro In Defense of Pure Reason Laurence BonJour propôs uma explicação da justificação a priori que, essencialmente, faz referência aos chamados insights racionais. Infelizmente, não é fornecida ao leitor uma resposta substancial à questão de o que exatamente sejam tais insights racionais. Além do mais, afirma-se que isso não é de modo algum uma deficiência decisiva da explicação de BonJour da justificação a priori — pelo menos, não uma deficiência que nos devesse motivar a abandonar sua explicação. Para apoiar a essa tese, BonJour refere-se a uma analogia entre o caso dos insights racionais e o caso da consciência. Ele indica que não abandonaríamos o uso da noção de consciência, apesar do fato de não haver hoje em dia nenhuma resposta satisfatória para a questão sobre o que seja exatamente a consciência. Argumentarei que a analogia a que BonJour se refere é de fato persuasiva e pode ajudá-lo, bem como a outros proponentes da explicação do insight racional, a lidar com com algumas objeções importantes. Mas tomar essa analogia a sério não tem como conseqüência minar uma tese racionalista favorita: a alegação de autonomia. Concluo que o racionalista defronta-se com um dilema; ele simplesmente não pode ter as duas coisas.Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC2006-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/1443410.5007/%xPrincipia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 10 No. 1 (2006); 21-38Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 10 Núm. 1 (2006); 21-38Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 10 n. 1 (2006); 21-381808-17111414-4247reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online)instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)instacron:UFSCporhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14434/13227Copyright (c) 2021 Vanessa Morlockhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessMorlock, Vanessa2016-01-02T12:15:08Zoai:periodicos.ufsc.br:article/14434Revistahttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principiaPUBhttps://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/oaiprincipia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br1808-17111414-4247opendoar:2016-01-02T12:15:08Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
The rationalist's dilemma The Rationalist's Dilemma |
title |
The rationalist's dilemma |
spellingShingle |
The rationalist's dilemma Morlock, Vanessa |
title_short |
The rationalist's dilemma |
title_full |
The rationalist's dilemma |
title_fullStr |
The rationalist's dilemma |
title_full_unstemmed |
The rationalist's dilemma |
title_sort |
The rationalist's dilemma |
author |
Morlock, Vanessa |
author_facet |
Morlock, Vanessa |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Morlock, Vanessa |
description |
In his book In Defense of Pure Reason Laurence BonJour proposed an account of a priori justification which essentially refers to so-called rational insights. Unfortunately, the reader is not equipped with a substantial answer to the question what such rational insights exactly are. And moreover, he is told that this is not an in any way decisive shortcoming of BonJour’s account of a priori justification — at least not a shortcoming which should motivate us to abandon his account. In order to support this thesis, BonJour refers to an analogy between the case of rational insights and the case of consciousness. He points out that we would not give up the use of the notion of consciousness, in spite of the fact that today there is still no satisfying answer to the question what consciousness exactly is. I will argue that the analogy BonJour refers to is in fact a persuasive one and can help him as well as other proponents of the rational-insight account to deal with some prominent objections. But taking the analogy seriously does consequently mean to undermine a favourite rationalist’s thesis: the autonomy claim. I conclude that the rationalist is confronted with a dilemma; he simply cannot have it both ways. |
publishDate |
2006 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2006-01-01 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14434 10.5007/%x |
url |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14434 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5007/%x |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.ufsc.br/index.php/principia/article/view/14434/13227 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Vanessa Morlock http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2021 Vanessa Morlock http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Federal University of Santa Catarina – UFSC |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 10 No. 1 (2006); 21-38 Principia: an international journal of epistemology; Vol. 10 Núm. 1 (2006); 21-38 Principia: an international journal of epistemology; v. 10 n. 1 (2006); 21-38 1808-1711 1414-4247 reponame:Principia (Florianópolis. Online) instname:Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) instacron:UFSC |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
instacron_str |
UFSC |
institution |
UFSC |
reponame_str |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
collection |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Principia (Florianópolis. Online) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina (UFSC) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
principia@contato.ufsc.br||principia@contato.ufsc.br |
_version_ |
1789435108896276480 |