Phenomenal Conservatism and the Demand for Metajustification

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Oliveira, Rogel
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