Intuitionist Particularism: An Introduction

M. Bergmann
{"title":"Intuitionist Particularism: An Introduction","authors":"M. Bergmann","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192898487.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter lays out an account of the particularist approach to epistemological inquiry and develops a version of it in terms of epistemic intuitions, which are seemings about epistemic value (such as justification or knowledge). It begins by briefly reviewing the history of particularism, from Thomas Reid through G. E. Moore to Roderick Chisholm, and then gives a clear statement of the particularist methodology. The remaining sections elaborate the view, giving pride of place to epistemic intuitions, which is why the resulting view is called ‘intuitionist particularism.’ Particularism in epistemology (which tends to be endorsed by commonsense anti-skeptics) puts more weight on epistemic intuitions about particular cases and which of our beliefs are rational. It stands opposed to methodism, which is typically endorsed by proponents of radical skepticism and puts more weight on epistemic intuitions about principles that say what’s required for a belief to be rational. In their extreme forms, these positions occupy two ends of a spectrum. The position advocated in this chapter is a moderate one that leans toward the particularist end of the spectrum, in a way that is compatible with both internalism and externalism in epistemology.","PeriodicalId":369089,"journal":{"name":"Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radical Skepticism and Epistemic Intuition","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192898487.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This chapter lays out an account of the particularist approach to epistemological inquiry and develops a version of it in terms of epistemic intuitions, which are seemings about epistemic value (such as justification or knowledge). It begins by briefly reviewing the history of particularism, from Thomas Reid through G. E. Moore to Roderick Chisholm, and then gives a clear statement of the particularist methodology. The remaining sections elaborate the view, giving pride of place to epistemic intuitions, which is why the resulting view is called ‘intuitionist particularism.’ Particularism in epistemology (which tends to be endorsed by commonsense anti-skeptics) puts more weight on epistemic intuitions about particular cases and which of our beliefs are rational. It stands opposed to methodism, which is typically endorsed by proponents of radical skepticism and puts more weight on epistemic intuitions about principles that say what’s required for a belief to be rational. In their extreme forms, these positions occupy two ends of a spectrum. The position advocated in this chapter is a moderate one that leans toward the particularist end of the spectrum, in a way that is compatible with both internalism and externalism in epistemology.
直觉主义特殊主义:导论
本章阐述了认识论探究的特殊主义方法,并从认识论直觉的角度发展了它的一个版本,这似乎是关于认识论价值(如证明或知识)。本文首先简要回顾了特殊主义的历史,从托马斯·里德到g·e·摩尔再到罗德里克·奇泽姆,然后对特殊主义的方法论进行了清晰的阐述。剩下的部分详细阐述了这一观点,给了认知直觉最重要的位置,这就是为什么由此产生的观点被称为“直觉主义的特殊主义”。认识论中的特殊主义(往往得到常识性反怀疑论者的支持)更重视关于特定情况的认知直觉,以及我们的哪些信念是理性的。它反对循道主义,循道主义通常得到激进怀疑主义支持者的支持,它更重视关于原则的认知直觉,这些原则说明了信仰是理性的所需条件。在极端的情况下,这些立场占据了光谱的两端。本章所提倡的立场是一种温和的立场,它以一种与认识论中的内在主义和外在主义兼容的方式,倾向于频谱的特殊主义一端。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信