Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for Metajustification
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2017 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Manuscrito (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8651133 |
Resumo: | This paper is on the justification of (PC), the epistemic principle defended by M. Huemer in his Phenomenal Conservatism theory. Put in a straightforward way, we can (and should) ask: what reasons are there for thinking that (PC) is true, that is, for thinking that appearances justify beliefs? This question corresponds – to use L. BonJour’s vocabulary - to the demand for a “metajustification”. The pursuit of this metajustification can take different directions, depending on the general conception or nature of epistemic justification we are working with and on who is supposed to satisfy the demand. Unfortunately, all of these directions seem to lead (PC) to a dead end. In other words, the apparently fair and even essential demand for a metajustification of (PC) cannot be met by the theory, at least in a satisfactory way. If we are right about that, it will remain the difficult question whether Phenomenal Conservatism is the only one (or even the right one!) to be blamed for this failure. We will briefly talk about that in the conclusion. |
id |
UNICAMP-17_d5d98c8722a880ec0b9f76b524cdae13 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8651133 |
network_acronym_str |
UNICAMP-17 |
network_name_str |
Manuscrito (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for MetajustificationPhenomenal conservatism. Metajustification. Direct realism. Foundationalism. Epistemic circularity.This paper is on the justification of (PC), the epistemic principle defended by M. Huemer in his Phenomenal Conservatism theory. Put in a straightforward way, we can (and should) ask: what reasons are there for thinking that (PC) is true, that is, for thinking that appearances justify beliefs? This question corresponds – to use L. BonJour’s vocabulary - to the demand for a “metajustification”. The pursuit of this metajustification can take different directions, depending on the general conception or nature of epistemic justification we are working with and on who is supposed to satisfy the demand. Unfortunately, all of these directions seem to lead (PC) to a dead end. In other words, the apparently fair and even essential demand for a metajustification of (PC) cannot be met by the theory, at least in a satisfactory way. If we are right about that, it will remain the difficult question whether Phenomenal Conservatism is the only one (or even the right one!) to be blamed for this failure. We will briefly talk about that in the conclusion.Universidade Estadual de Campinas2017-12-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPesquisa bibliográficaapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8651133Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 40 n. 4 (2017): out./dez.; 159-177Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 40 No. 4 (2017): out./dez.; 159-177Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 40 Núm. 4 (2017): out./dez.; 159-1772317-630Xreponame:Manuscrito (Online)instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)instacron:UNICAMPporhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8651133/17224Copyright (c) 2017 Manuscritoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessOliveira, Rogel2017-12-05T09:53:52Zoai:ojs.periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br:article/8651133Revistahttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscritoPUBhttps://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/oaimwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br2317-630X0100-6045opendoar:2017-12-05T09:53:52Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for Metajustification |
title |
Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for Metajustification |
spellingShingle |
Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for Metajustification Oliveira, Rogel Phenomenal conservatism. Metajustification. Direct realism. Foundationalism. Epistemic circularity. |
title_short |
Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for Metajustification |
title_full |
Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for Metajustification |
title_fullStr |
Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for Metajustification |
title_full_unstemmed |
Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for Metajustification |
title_sort |
Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for Metajustification |
author |
Oliveira, Rogel |
author_facet |
Oliveira, Rogel |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Oliveira, Rogel |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Phenomenal conservatism. Metajustification. Direct realism. Foundationalism. Epistemic circularity. |
topic |
Phenomenal conservatism. Metajustification. Direct realism. Foundationalism. Epistemic circularity. |
description |
This paper is on the justification of (PC), the epistemic principle defended by M. Huemer in his Phenomenal Conservatism theory. Put in a straightforward way, we can (and should) ask: what reasons are there for thinking that (PC) is true, that is, for thinking that appearances justify beliefs? This question corresponds – to use L. BonJour’s vocabulary - to the demand for a “metajustification”. The pursuit of this metajustification can take different directions, depending on the general conception or nature of epistemic justification we are working with and on who is supposed to satisfy the demand. Unfortunately, all of these directions seem to lead (PC) to a dead end. In other words, the apparently fair and even essential demand for a metajustification of (PC) cannot be met by the theory, at least in a satisfactory way. If we are right about that, it will remain the difficult question whether Phenomenal Conservatism is the only one (or even the right one!) to be blamed for this failure. We will briefly talk about that in the conclusion. |
publishDate |
2017 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2017-12-05 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Pesquisa bibliográfica |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8651133 |
url |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8651133 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.sbu.unicamp.br/ojs/index.php/manuscrito/article/view/8651133/17224 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Manuscrito info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Copyright (c) 2017 Manuscrito |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofia; v. 40 n. 4 (2017): out./dez.; 159-177 Manuscrito: International Journal of Philosophy; Vol. 40 No. 4 (2017): out./dez.; 159-177 Manuscrito: Revista Internacional de Filosofía; Vol. 40 Núm. 4 (2017): out./dez.; 159-177 2317-630X reponame:Manuscrito (Online) instname:Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) instacron:UNICAMP |
instname_str |
Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
instacron_str |
UNICAMP |
institution |
UNICAMP |
reponame_str |
Manuscrito (Online) |
collection |
Manuscrito (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Manuscrito (Online) - Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
mwrigley@cle.unicamp.br|| dascal@spinoza.tau.ac.il||publicacoes@cle.unicamp.br |
_version_ |
1800216567019995136 |