Knowledge-first perceptual epistemology: A comment on Littlejohn and Millar

IF 0.6 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
David de Bruijn
{"title":"Knowledge-first perceptual epistemology: A comment on Littlejohn and Millar","authors":"David de Bruijn","doi":"10.1111/phib.12256","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>According to epistemological disjunctivism (ED), ordinary perceptual experience <i>ensures</i> an opportunity for perceptual knowledge. In recent years, two distinct models of this idea have been developed. For Duncan Pritchard (<i>Epistemological disjunctivism</i>, 2012, Oxford University Press; <i>Epistemic angst: Radical skepticism and the groundlessness of our believing</i>, 2012, Princeton University Press), perception provides distinctly powerful <i>reasons</i> for belief. By contrast, Clayton Littlejohn (<i>Journal of Philosophical Research</i>, 41, 201; <i>Knowledge first</i>, 2017, Oxford University Press; <i>Normativity</i>: <i>Epistemic and practical</i>, 2018, Oxford University Press) and Alan Millar (<i>The nature and value of knowledge</i>: <i>Three investigations</i>, 2010, Oxford University Press; <i>Philosophical Issues</i>, 21, 332) argue for a version of ED in terms of a “knowledge first” program, on which perception directly provides <i>knowledge</i>, without relying on antecedent reasons or justification. Specifically, both Littlejohn and Millar argue that “reasons first” ED faces a problematic regress. In this article, I defend “reasons first” ED by arguing that <i>experience</i> provides a type of reason that escapes the regress. I also argue that reasons are a fundamental aspect of ED, especially in its anti-skeptical stance.</p>","PeriodicalId":45646,"journal":{"name":"Analytic Philosophy","volume":"64 3","pages":"329-345"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Analytic Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phib.12256","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

According to epistemological disjunctivism (ED), ordinary perceptual experience ensures an opportunity for perceptual knowledge. In recent years, two distinct models of this idea have been developed. For Duncan Pritchard (Epistemological disjunctivism, 2012, Oxford University Press; Epistemic angst: Radical skepticism and the groundlessness of our believing, 2012, Princeton University Press), perception provides distinctly powerful reasons for belief. By contrast, Clayton Littlejohn (Journal of Philosophical Research, 41, 201; Knowledge first, 2017, Oxford University Press; Normativity: Epistemic and practical, 2018, Oxford University Press) and Alan Millar (The nature and value of knowledge: Three investigations, 2010, Oxford University Press; Philosophical Issues, 21, 332) argue for a version of ED in terms of a “knowledge first” program, on which perception directly provides knowledge, without relying on antecedent reasons or justification. Specifically, both Littlejohn and Millar argue that “reasons first” ED faces a problematic regress. In this article, I defend “reasons first” ED by arguing that experience provides a type of reason that escapes the regress. I also argue that reasons are a fundamental aspect of ED, especially in its anti-skeptical stance.

知识优先的知觉认识论:对Littlejohn和Millar的评析
根据认识论分离论(ED),普通的知觉经验保证了知觉知识的机会。近年来,这一观点的两种截然不同的模式已经发展起来。对于邓肯·普里查德(认识论分离论,2012,牛津大学出版社;认知焦虑:激进的怀疑主义和我们信仰的无根据,2012年,普林斯顿大学出版社),感知为信仰提供了明显有力的理由。相比之下,Clayton Littlejohn (Journal of Philosophical Research, 41, 201;《知识第一》,2017年,牛津大学出版社;规范性:认识论和实践,2018年,牛津大学出版社)和艾伦·米勒(知识的性质和价值:三个调查,2010年,牛津大学出版社;《哲学问题》(Philosophical Issues), 21, 332)认为,在“知识优先”的项目中,感知直接提供知识,而不依赖于先决理由或理由,这是ED的一个版本。具体来说,利特尔约翰和米勒都认为,“理由优先”的教育面临着有问题的倒退。在这篇文章中,我为“理由第一”的观点辩护,认为经验提供了一种逃避倒退的理由。我还认为,理性是ED的一个基本方面,尤其是它的反怀疑立场。
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
Analytic Philosophy
Analytic Philosophy PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
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