a priori

RETHINKING THE A PRIORI/A POSTERIORI DISTINCTION (pages 261-277)

Submitted by logos on Wed, 06/27/2012 - 14:58
paper title: 

RETHINKING THE A PRIORI/A POSTERIORI DISTINCTION (pages 261-277)

paper type: 
article
paper author: 

Jennifer Wilson MULNIX

paper author family name: 

MULNIX

paper abstract: 

ABSTRACT: This paper offers an account of the a priori/a posteriori distinction utilizing the insights of reliabilism, focusing on the inputs to reliable belief-forming processes. I propose that a belief possesses a priori justification if it is the result of a reliable belief-producing process whose input is ‘non-sensory’ and the reliability of this process does not ‘causally depend’ on the reliability of a prior process taking in ‘sensory’ input. One of the interesting consequences of this account is in the treatment of introspective knowledge of one’s belief-states; it was classically considered a posteriori, but comes out a priori on this model. 

paper issue: 
8

SELF-EVIDENCE (pages 325-352)

Submitted by logos on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 23:03
paper title: 

SELF-EVIDENCE (pages 325-352)

paper type: 
article
paper author: 

Carl GINET

paper author family name: 

Ginet

paper abstract: 

ABSTRACT: This paper develops an account of what it is for a proposition to be selfevident to someone, based on the idea that certain propositions are such that to fully understand them is to believe them. It argues that when a proposition p is self-evident to one, one has non-inferential a priori justification for believing that p and, a welcome feature, a justification that does not involve exercising any special sort of intuitive faculty; if, in addition, it is true that p and there exists no reason to believe that the proposition that p is incoherent, then one knows a priori that p. The paper argues that certain deeply contingent truths, e.g., the truth that I would now express by saying “I exist”, can be self-evident to, and thus known a priori by, the person they are about at the time they are about; but, since they cannot be known a priori, or even expressed, by anyone else or at any other time, they should not count as a priori truths.

paper pdf: 
paper issue: 
2

Powered by Drupal 6 | web development: Codrin Dinu Vasiliu

Powered by Drupal, an open source content management system
Syndicate content
© 2010 Logos & Episteme | An International Journal of Epistemology. Drupal theme by Kiwi Themes.