Skip to main content

Three contemporary epistemologists


Image result for john mcdowell philosophy

1. Ernest Sosa, virtue epistemology.

 It is now generally accepted that, in ethical philosophy, the dichotomy between teleological and deontological ethics is too simple. There is a new (old) kid at the table, "virtue ethics." The idea behind that label is that if one has certain character traits (virtues) then what one does will be right. The traits can be isolated and discussed independent of ideas of rightness, so that justice isn't a virtue because it leads to just decisions: rather, we know certain decisions to be just because just people make them!

 With Sosa and others, "virtue ethics" has expanded into "virtue epistemology." The idea is the same: evaluation passes from the acts to the doers in the former case, it passes from knowledge to the knowers in the latter. 

2. John McDowell, a disjunctive theory of perceptual experience

 McDowell (portrayed above) is a realist about the external world. He sees a certain "tempting"line of argument about hallucinations as a threat to that realism, and he responds to that threat by what is known as his disjunction theory of perceptual experience. Further research I leave, dear reader, to you. 

3. Tyler Burge, externalism with respect to external content. 

 Burge's work responds to a classic epistemological issue: what does it mean to have a belief? Internalists believe that the significance of a belief can be understood from that belief's internal qualities or, at most, from the mental state of which the belief is a part. 

 But externalists hold that the fact of a belief cannot be understood without cognizance of the physical and social reality surrounding the particular organism considered as the believer. 


    Just wanted to put this out there.
    Labels:

    Comments

    Post a Comment

    Popular posts from this blog

    Searle: The Chinese Room

    John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
    24 comments
    Read more

    A Story About Coleridge

    This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
    10 comments
    Read more

    The Growing Block Theory of Time

    My own disposition, in regard to the philosophy of time, is toward the "growing block" theory. This is the view that past events remain realities, that present-moment events are also realities, but that future events are not yet real. The image is of the universe as a block with an edge on (say) the right-hand side. The block is expanding because that edge is moving ever further right, and that edge is what we call the present, or, simply, "now." Everything to the left of that edge is both static (the past is complete) and, still and forever, real. Think of the phrase "the moving finger writes." The chief alternatives to the growing-block theory are "presentism" (only the now-edge itself is real) and "eternalism" (past, present, and future are all real." I believe that time is a growing block because (1) that's what it feels like, (2) we should stick with the introspective phenomenon unless we have good reason to abandon ...
    8 comments
    Read more