DOCSLIB.ORG

Kant on the Cosmological Argument

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Kant on the Cosmological Argument Philosophers’ volume 14, no. 12 Introduction may 2014 Imprint In the section of the first Critique entitled “The Ideal of Pure Reason,” Kant constructs an elaborately layered critique of the so-called “cos- mological proof” of the existence of God.1 He portrays the cosmologi- cal argument (as I shall more neutrally term it) as having three main phases.2 First, one observes that there is at least one existent being, and argues that it exists contingently (28: 1006). Second, appealing to the Principle of Sufficient Reason, one argues for the existence of Kant on the an absolutely necessary being as the ultimate cause (A 605/B 633n*) or ground (28: 1006) of this contingently existing being. Third, one argues that this absolutely necessary being is a most real being — or ens realissimum (A 605–6/B 633–34). In “The Ideal,” Kant presents Cosmological Argument this third step as drawing the argument to a close (A 606/B 634). But, judging by his discussion in the Religion Lectures, he sometimes con- ceives of the argument as intended to be completed by a sort of coda in which one argues that the absolutely necessary being, since it is an ens realissimum, must possess each of the traditional “divine attributes.”3 Kant raises three main objections to this version of the cosmologi- cal argument. First, it “presupposes” the correctness of the ontological argument in the sense, apparently, of tacitly incorporating the onto- logical argument as a proper part (A 607/B 635; A 608–9/B 636–7). Second, it commits an ignoratio elenchi, a fallacy of arguing for some- thing other than what was at issue (A 609/B 637). It does so, Kant Ian Proops thinks, because the proponent of the argument, having promised to establish the existence of an absolutely necessary, “highest” being — that The University of Texas at Austin is, a necessarily existent most real being — on the basis of empirical assumptions, in practice first contends for a weaker conclusion and then, in order to arrive at the stronger, desired conclusion, reverts to 1. A 603/B 631–A 614/B 642. 2. Kant is plainly not using “proof” as a success word, but I will avoid following © 2014 Ian Proops him in this because the practice can today sound jarring. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 3. See 28: 1037 and 28: 1047–49 for some of the relevant arguments. There is also an allusion to this step in the first Critique itself (A 580/B 608). Kant, Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. however, ignores it in his official critical discussion of the argument at A 603– <www.philosophersimprint.org/014012/> 06/B 631–34. ian proops Kant on the Cosmological Argument the well-trodden (a priori) path of the ontological argument (ibid.). the first phase of the argument — the part that proceeds by pushing an Third, the cosmological argument presupposes the ontological argu- explanatory or causal regress to its limit — is that there is some being ment, but not merely because it tacitly assumes the soundness of the that cannot exist in any other way than the way in which it actually ex- ontological argument as a premise (A608/B 637). Since he takes him- ists, a being that, as Kant puts it himself, is capable of existing “only in self to have established the unsoundness of the ontological argument one single way [nur auf eine einziger Art]” (A 605/B 633; 28: 1029).4 Such earlier in “The Ideal,” Kant concludes that the cosmological argument a being would be one for which the question “Why does this being must be unsound. exist thus and not otherwise?” would not arise. And it would not do Kant also raises certain other objections to the cosmological argu- so simply because it would be an impossibility for this being to exist ment, including the charge that it attempts to employ the Principle otherwise than it actually does. In what follows, I will refer to a being of Sufficient Reason beyond its legitimate domain of application (A so conceived as an “essentially unimodal being.” 609–10/B 638). But it is clear that he wishes to rest the weight of his Because, in Kant’s view, the first phase of the cosmological argu- criticism on these three main points. ment would at best establish the existence of an essentially unimod- Although it is broadly agreed that Kant announces these three criti- al being, the argument must, he thinks, be supplemented by an a cisms, not every commentator has been persuaded that Kant really de- priori train of reasoning in which it is argued (1) that this essentially velops all three of them. Most notably, Allen Wood, in his perceptive unimodal being is an ens realissimum (or most real being), and (2) study of Kant’s philosophy of religion, contends that Kant, in spite of that this ens realissimum exists necessarily or, to put it another way, presenting himself as developing all three criticisms in “The Ideal,” in that it is a necessary being. I will refer to these parts of Kant’s re- practice makes a case only for the third (Wood 1978, 124–25). Wood construction of the cosmological argument as the second and third is certainly right that this is how things seem, but I will argue that a “phases” of the argument. closer look at the relevant texts reveals his assessment to be mistaken. Kant, I will argue, sees the cosmological argument as containing Kant does, indeed, develop all three criticisms in “The Ideal.” More- the ontological argument as a proper part because he believes that the over, I shall argue that it matters greatly that he should have done so; former must appeal to the latter if it hopes to show not merely that the for it is the two criticisms that Wood takes Kant to have failed to de- ens realissimum exists, but that it exists necessarily — a conclusion that velop that turn out to be the most promising. for Kant must mean that it exists from its very concept (or so, at least, The key to recognizing all three of Kant’s announced objections as I will argue). working parts of his critical case is, I shall argue, to reflect on the fol- 4. Kant sometimes speaks of an “absolutely necessary being” and sometimes lowing question: to what kind of contingent fact does Kant see the cos- merely of a “necessary being.” In the present context, it is clear that the latter mological argument as appealing? I will argue that the answer turns phrase is intended to abbreviate the former. The qualification “absolutely” is intended to mark a contrast — familiar from the writings of Leibniz and Wolff, out to be somewhat unexpected: Kant sees his opponent as appeal- and going back (at least) to Aquinas — between absolute and hypothetical ing not to the assumption that something observably existent might necessity. A hypothetically necessary being is one whose existence is nec- essary on some condition, while an absolutely necessary being is one whose not have existed at all, but rather to the assumption that it might have existence is unconditionally necessary. Kant, of course, believes that there existed but not in the way in which it actually exists — to the assumption, are numerous hypothetically necessary beings because he regards any (non- initial) state of the empirical world and any (non-initial) event within it as in other words, that it might have existed in some other way. Accord- necessarily existent given the laws of nature and the existence of a previous state of ingly, he supposes that the most that one could hope to establish in the world. philosophers’ imprint – 2 – vol. 14, no. 12 (may 2014) ian proops Kant on the Cosmological Argument The version of the ontological argument that Kant concentrates on 633) — see section 3 for details. Third, one of Kant’s actual historical throughout his discussion, I will argue, is the Leibnizian version — one opponents, Christian Wolff, turns out to be committed to thinking of that begins with an attempt to establish the consistency of the concept an absolutely necessary being as an essentially unimodal being since of the ens realissimum (New Essays, bk. 4, chap. 10, 437–38). I will ar- he conceives of a contingent being as a being that is capable of having gue that Kant sees the particular version of the cosmological argument existed in some other way — see section 2. Finally, on the assumption that he attributes to his opponent as containing (what amounts to) an that the first phase of the argument purports to establish only the exis- attempted proof of this same consistency assumption. He views the tence of an essentially unimodal being, we can explain why the notion matter this way because the train of reasoning constituted by the first of a being that is capable of existing “only in one single way” figures in two phases, since it purports to establish the existence of an ens realis- Kant’s discussion at A 605/B 633 (compare: 28: 1029). simum, will — if sound — trivially suffice to establish the consistency of The essay is divided into five sections and a conclusion. The first the concept of an ens realissimum. section examines Kant’s reconstruction of the first phase of the cos- It will take a good deal of work to show how these ideas play out mological argument. I contend that he sees this phase as capable at in detail, and how they are grounded in Kant’s texts, but I preview best — that is, waiving certain other objections — of establishing only them here in the hope of helping the reader keep track of the twists the existence of an “absolutely necessary being” conceived of as an es- and turns in Kant’s rather complicated reconstruction of his oppo- sentially unimodal being.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On the Logic of the Ontological Argument∗ X
    Paul E. Oppenheimer and Edward N. Zalta 2 by `9y(y =x)' and the claim that x has the property of existence by `E!x'. That is, we represent the difference between the two claims by exploiting the distinction between quantifying over x and predicating existence of On the Logic of the Ontological Argument∗ x. We shall sometimes refer to this as the distinction between the being of x and the existence of x. Thus, instead of reading Anselm as having discovered a way of inferring God's actuality from His mere possibility, Paul E. Oppenheimer we read him as having discovered a way of inferring God's existence from Thinking Machines Corporation His mere being. Another important feature of our reading concerns the fact that we and take the phrase \that than which none greater can be conceived" seriously. Certain inferences in the ontological argument are intimately linked to the logical behavior of this phrase, which is best represented as a definite Edward N. Zalta description.3 If we are to do justice to Anselm's argument, we must not Philosophy Department syntactically eliminate descriptions the way Russell does. One of the Stanford University highlights of our interpretation is that a very simple inference involving descriptions stands at the heart of the argument.4 Saint Anselm of Canterbury offered several arguments for the existence The Language and Logic Required for the Argument of God. We examine the famous ontological argument in Proslogium ii. Many recent authors have interpreted this argument as a modal one.1 But We shall cast our new reading in a standard first-order language.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Aquinas' Argument from Motion & the Kalām Cosmological
    University of Central Florida STARS Honors Undergraduate Theses UCF Theses and Dissertations 2020 Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument Derwin Sánchez Jr. University of Central Florida Part of the Philosophy Commons Find similar works at: https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses University of Central Florida Libraries http://library.ucf.edu This Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the UCF Theses and Dissertations at STARS. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Undergraduate Theses by an authorized administrator of STARS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Recommended Citation Sánchez, Derwin Jr., "Rethinking Causality: Thomas Aquinas' Argument From Motion & the Kalām Cosmological Argument" (2020). Honors Undergraduate Theses. 858. https://stars.library.ucf.edu/honorstheses/858 RETHINKING CAUSALITY: THOMAS AQUINAS’ ARGUMENT FROM MOTION & THE KALĀM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT by DERWIN SANCHEZ, JR. A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Honors in the Major Program in Philosophy in the College of Arts and Humanities and in the Burnett Honors College at the University of Central Florida Orlando, Florida Fall Term 2020 Thesis Chair: Dr. Cyrus Zargar i ABSTRACT Ever since they were formulated in the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas’ famous Five Ways to demonstrate the existence of God have been frequently debated. During this process there have been several misconceptions of what Aquinas actually meant, especially when discussing his cosmological arguments. While previous researchers have managed to tease out why Aquinas accepts some infinite regresses and rejects others, I attempt to add on to this by demonstrating the centrality of his metaphysics in his argument from motion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Teleological Argument Looks at the Purpose of Something and from That
    The teleological argument looks at the purpose of something and Cosmological arguments start with observations about the way The Third Way: contingency and necessity William Paley (1742 – 1805) observed that complex objects work from that he reasons that God must exist. Aquinas (1224 – 1274) the universe works and from there these try to explain why the with regularity, (seasons, gravity, etc). This order seems to be the gave five ‘ways’ of proving God exists and this, his teleological universe exists. Aquinas gives three versions of the cosmological Aquinas’ point here is that everything in the universe is result of the work of a designer who has put this regularity and arguments, starting with three different (although similar) argument, is the fifth of his five ways. contingent – it relies on something to have brought it into order into place deliberately and with purpose. For example, the observations: motion, causation and contingency. Aquinas, influenced by Aristotle, believed that all things have a existence and also things to let it continue to exist. eye is constructed perfectly to see. For Palely, all of this pointed to purpose, but we cannot achieve that purpose without something The First Way: the unmoved mover a designer, who is God. In nature, there are things that are possible ‘to be’ and to make it happen – some sort of guide, which is God. Inspired by Aristotle, Aquinas noticed that the ways in which things ‘not to be’ (contingent beings) The analogy of the watch move or change (changing state is a form of motion) must mean These things could not always have existed because that something has made that motion take place.
    [Show full text]
  • Divine Utilitarianism
    Liberty University DIVINE UTILITARIANISM A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Masters of Arts in Philosophical Studies By Jimmy R. Lewis January 16, 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter One: Introduction ……………………………...……………..……....3 Statement of the Problem…………………………….………………………….3 Statement of the Purpose…………………………….………………………….5 Statement of the Importance of the Problem…………………….……………...6 Statement of Position on the Problem………………………...…………….......7 Limitations…………………………………………….………………………...8 Development of Thesis……………………………………………….…………9 Chapter Two: What is meant by “Divine Utilitarianism”..................................11 Introduction……………………………….…………………………………….11 A Definition of God.……………………………………………………………13 Anselm’s God …………………………………………………………..14 Thomas’ God …………………………………………………………...19 A Definition of Utility .…………………………………………………………22 Augustine and the Good .……………………………………………......23 Bentham and Mill on Utility ……………………………………………25 Divine Utilitarianism in the Past .……………………………………………….28 New Divine Utilitarianism .……………………………………………………..35 Chapter Three: The Ethics of God ……………………………………………45 Divine Command Theory: A Juxtaposition .……………………………………45 What Divine Command Theory Explains ………………….…………...47 What Divine Command Theory Fails to Explain ………………………47 What Divine Utilitarianism Explains …………………………………………...50 Assessing the Juxtaposition .…………………………………………………....58 Chapter Four: Summary and Conclusion……………………………………...60 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………..64 2 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION Statement of the
    [Show full text]
  • The Design Argument
    The design argument The different versions of the cosmological argument we discussed over the last few weeks were arguments for the existence of God based on extremely abstract and general features of the universe, such as the fact that some things come into existence, and that there are some contingent things. The argument we’ll be discussing today is not like this. The basic idea of the argument is that if we pay close attention to the details of the universe in which we live, we’ll be able to see that that universe must have been created by an intelligent designer. This design argument, or, as its sometimes called, the teleological argument, has probably been the most influential argument for the existence of God throughout most of history. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. You will by now not be surprised that a version of the teleological argument can be found in the writings of Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas is noting that things we observe in nature, like plants and animals, typically act in ways which are advantageous to themselves. Think, for example, of the way that many plants grow in the direction of light. Clearly, as Aquinas says, plants don’t do this because they know where the light is; as he says, they “lack knowledge.” But then how do they manage this? What does explain the fact that plants grow in the direction of light, if not knowledge? Aquinas’ answer to this question is that they must be “directed to their end” -- i.e., designed to be such as to grow toward the light -- by God.
    [Show full text]
  • Hegel's Critique of Contingency in Kant's Principle of Teleology Kimberly Zwez [email protected]
    Florida International University FIU Digital Commons FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations University Graduate School 3-26-2014 Hegel's Critique of Contingency in Kant's Principle of Teleology Kimberly Zwez [email protected] DOI: 10.25148/etd.FI14040885 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons, and the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Zwez, Kimberly, "Hegel's Critique of Contingency in Kant's Principle of Teleology" (2014). FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1194. https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/etd/1194 This work is brought to you for free and open access by the University Graduate School at FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in FIU Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY Miami, Florida HEGEL’S CRITIQUE OF CONTINGENCY IN KANT’S PRINCIPLE OF TELEOLOGY A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS in RELIGIOUS STUDIES by Kimberly Zwez 2014 To: Dean Kenneth G. Furton College of Arts and Sciences This thesis, written by Kimberly Zwez, and entitled Hegel’s Critique of Contingency in Kant’s Principle of Teleology having been approved in respect to style and intellectual content is referred to you for judgment. We have read this thesis and recommend that it be approved ____________________________________________________ Christine Gudorf ____________________________________________________ Kenneth Rogerson ____________________________________________________ Whitney Bauman, Major Professor Date of Defense: March 26, 2014 This thesis of Kimberly Zwez is approved.
    [Show full text]
  • Gce a Level Marking Scheme
    GCE A LEVEL MARKING SCHEME SUMMER 2018 A LEVEL RELIGIOUS STUDIES - COMPONENT 2 PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION A120U20-1 © WJEC CBAC Ltd. INTRODUCTION This marking scheme was used by WJEC for the 2018 examination. It was finalised after detailed discussion at examiners' conferences by all the examiners involved in the assessment. The conference was held shortly after the paper was taken so that reference could be made to the full range of candidates' responses, with photocopied scripts forming the basis of discussion. The aim of the conference was to ensure that the marking scheme was interpreted and applied in the same way by all examiners. It is hoped that this information will be of assistance to centres but it is recognised at the same time that, without the benefit of participation in the examiners' conference, teachers may have different views on certain matters of detail or interpretation. WJEC regrets that it cannot enter into any discussion or correspondence about this marking scheme. © WJEC CBAC Ltd. Marking guidance for examiners, please apply carefully and consistently: Positive marking It should be remembered that candidates are writing under examination conditions and credit should be given for what the candidate writes, rather than adopting the approach of penalising him/her for any omissions. It should be possible for a very good response to achieve full marks and a very poor one to achieve zero marks. Marks should not be deducted for a less than perfect answer if it satisfies the criteria of the mark scheme. Exemplars in the mark scheme are only meant as helpful guides.
    [Show full text]
  • Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems
    NIST Special Publication 800-34 Rev. 1 Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems Marianne Swanson Pauline Bowen Amy Wohl Phillips Dean Gallup David Lynes NIST Special Publication 800-34 Rev. 1 Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems Marianne Swanson Pauline Bowen Amy Wohl Phillips Dean Gallup David Lynes May 2010 U.S. Department of Commerce Gary Locke, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Patrick D. Gallagher, Director Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. There are references in this publication to documents currently under development by NIST in accordance with responsibilities assigned to NIST under the Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002. The methodologies in this document may be used even before the completion of such companion documents. Thus, until such time as each document is completed, current requirements, guidelines, and procedures (where they exist) remain operative. For planning and transition purposes, federal agencies may wish to closely follow the development of these new documents by NIST. Individuals are also encouraged to review the public draft documents and offer their comments to NIST. All NIST documents mentioned in this publication, other than the ones noted above, are available at http://csrc.nist.gov/publications. National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 800-34 Natl.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Events Contingency Planning
    Special Events Contingency Planning Job Aids Manual March 2005 FEMA IS-15: Special Events Contingency Planning Job Aids Manual TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ..................................................................................... 1 Introduction Preface ....................................................................................................... 1 Background ................................................................................................. 2 Scope ......................................................................................................... 3 Synopsis ..................................................................................................... 4 Chapter Overviews........................................................................................ 4 Chapter 1: Pre-Event Planning Introduction.............................................................................................. 1-1 Definition of Special Event and Mass Gathering .............................................. 1-1 Planning Meetings for Special Events/Mass Gatherings .................................... 1-2 The Planning Process.................................................................................. 1-3 State and Federal Roles in Terrorism Incident Prevention ................................ 1-4 Crowd Types ............................................................................................. 1-9 Crowd Composition .................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Leibniz and Theodicy Nicholas R. Green
    Leibniz and the Theodicy Modern Western Philosophy February 23rd, 2010 Is this the best of all possible worlds? • Leibniz asserts that it is • His argument depends on two essential components – Principle of Sufficient Reason – A cosmological argument for God’s existence A Brief Review of the PSR “…we consider that we can find no true or existent fact, no true assertion, without there being sufficient reason why it is thus and not otherwise, although most of the time these reasons cannot be known to us.” (Monadology 32, AW 278A) The take away? There is no effect without a cause. To understand the Theodicy, we need God. Let’s prove Him. A Cosmological Proof for God’s Existence CPG 1: A given event or object requires sufficient reason for its occurrence (I.e., every effect must have a cause) CPG 2: The cause of that given event (its sufficient reason) must itself have a cause (sufficient reason) CPG 3: There must be a stop to the infinite regress of causes CPG 4: The termination of the series of sufficient reasons must necessarily exist, and exist outside the chain CPG 5: This is God In Leibniz’s Words… “There must be a sufficient reason in contingent truths, or truths of fact, that is, in the series of things distributed throughout the universe of creatures, where the resolution into particular reasons could proceed into unlimited detail…And since all of this detail involves nothing but other prior and or more detailed contingents, each of which needs a similar analysis in order to give its reason…It must be the case that the sufficient or ultimate reason is outside the the sequence or series of this multiplicity of contingencies, however infinite it may be…The ultimate reason of things must be in a necessary substance in which the diversity of changes is only eminent, as in its source.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Monotheism: a Signal of Transcendence Challenging
    Liberty University Original Monotheism: A Signal of Transcendence Challenging Naturalism and New Ageism A Thesis Project Report Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Divinity in Candidacy for the Degree of Doctor of Ministry Department of Christian Leadership and Church Ministries by Daniel R. Cote Lynchburg, Virginia April 5, 2020 Copyright © 2020 by Daniel R. Cote All Rights Reserved ii Liberty University School of Divinity Thesis Project Approval Sheet Dr. T. Michael Christ Adjunct Faculty School of Divinity Dr. Phil Gifford Adjunct Faculty School of Divinity iii THE DOCTOR OF MINISTRY THESIS PROJECT ABSTRACT Daniel R. Cote Liberty University School of Divinity, 2020 Mentor: Dr. T. Michael Christ Where once in America, belief in Christian theism was shared by a large majority of the population, over the last 70 years belief in Christian theism has significantly eroded. From 1948 to 2018, the percent of Americans identifying as Catholic or Christians dropped from 91 percent to 67 percent, with virtually all the drop coming from protestant denominations.1 Naturalism and new ageism increasingly provide alternative means for understanding existential reality without the moral imperatives and the belief in the divine associated with Christian theism. The ironic aspect of the shifting of worldviews underway in western culture is that it continues with little regard for strong evidence for the truth of Christian theism emerging from historical, cultural, and scientific research. One reality long overlooked in this regard is the research of Wilhelm Schmidt and others, which indicates that the earliest religion of humanity is monotheism. Original monotheism is a strong indicator of the existence of a transcendent God who revealed Himself as portrayed in Genesis 1-11, thus affirming the truth of essential elements of Christian theism and the falsity of naturalism and new ageism.
    [Show full text]
  • Reading Questions for Phil 251.200, Fall 2012 (Daniel)
    Reading Questions for Phil 251.200, Fall 2012 (Daniel) Class One: What is Philosophy? (Aug. 28) How is philosophy different from mythology? How is philosophy different from religion? How is philosophy different from science? What does it mean to say that the “love of wisdom” is concerned with the justification of opinions? Why is giving reasons for your beliefs important regarding the main areas of philosophy (e.g., metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, aesthetics, and logic)? Class Two: The Activity of Philosophy and The Life of Reason [two readings] (Aug. 30) How is the appeal to reason different from an appeal to authority, emotion, and self- interest? What are the criteria for determining whether your reasons for doing or believing something are justified (i.e., “good” reasons)? According to Socrates, “the unexamined life is not worth living”: why?—especially since it is obvious that human beings are not essentially or inherently rational. How can reason be used to resolve conflicts in feelings and among different people? Why is appealing to reason preferable to relying on authority or allowing people to believe whatever they want about the world? Class Three: Knowledge and Skepticism (Sept. 4) What distinguishes propositional knowledge, “knowing how,” and “knowledge by acquaintance”? How does Clifford’s insistence on having evidence highlight the moral significance of distinguishing belief and knowledge? What are the three necessary conditions for knowledge? Give an example of a Gettier- case exception—that is, a case of
    [Show full text]