DOCSLIB.ORG

Curriculum Vitae

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Curriculum Vitae Richard Feldman Curriculum Vita University Professor of Philosophy University of Rochester Rochester, New York 14627 E-mail: [email protected] EDUCATION: B.A., Cornell University, 1970 Ph.D., University of Massachusetts, 1975 EMPLOYMENT EXPERIENCE: Sep. 1974 - June 1975: Instructor, Franklin and Marshall College July 1975 - June 1981: Assistant Professor, University of Rochester July 1981 - June 1988: Associate Professor and Chair, Department of Philosophy, University of Rochester July 1989 - July 1991: Associate Professor, University of Rochester July 1991 - June 1997: Professor and Chair, University of Rochester July 1997 - Professor, University of Rochester Spring 2002: Visiting Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Fall 2003: Professor (part-time), Syracuse University Spring 2006-June 2017: Dean of the College, University of Rochester Jan. 2018-June 2019: President, University of Rochester June 2019 - : University Professor of Philosophy HONORARY POSITION Fall 2017: The Romanell-Phi Beta Kappa Professorship in Philosophy AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION: Epistemology, Metaphysics PUBLICATIONS: Books 1. Reason and Argument, Prentice-Hall, 1993; 2nd Edition, 1999. 2. Epistemology, Prentice Hall (Foundations of Philosophy Series), 2003. 3. Evidentialism (with Earl Conee), Oxford University Press, 2004. 4. The Good, The Right, Life and Death, ed. (with Jason Raibly, Kris McDaniel, and Michael Zimmerman), Ashgate, 2006. 5. Disagreement, ed. (with Ted A. Warfield), Oxford University Press, 2010. 6. Thinking Things Through (in preparation) Papers 1. “An Alleged Defect in Gettier Counterexamples,” The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 52 (1974): 68-69; reprinted in Paul K. Moser, ed., Empirical Knowledge, Rowman & Allanheld, 1986, Paul Moser and Arnold vander Nat, eds., Human Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1986, Kenneth Lucey, ed., On Knowing and the Known: Introductory Readings in Epistemology, Prometheus Books, 1996, and in Sven Bernecker and Fred Dretske, eds., Knowledge: Readings in Contemporary Epistemology, Oxford, 2000. 2. “Belief and Ambiguity,” in Views on Language, edited by Orboubadian and Engle, Inter- University Publishing, Murfeesboro, Tennessee, 1975, pp. 53-64. 3. “Belief and Inscriptions,” Philosophical Studies32 (1977): 349-353. 4. “Actions and De Re Beliefs,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 8 (1979): 266-73. 5. “Thalberg on the Irreducibility of Events,” (co-authored with Edward Wierenga) Analysis(1979): 11-16. 6. “Lehrer's Theory of Justification,” Australasian Journal of Philosophy 57 (1979): 266-273. 7. “Saying Different Things,” Philosophical Studies38 (1980): 79-84. 8. “Identity Conditions and Events,” (co-authored with Edward Wierenga) Canadian Journal of Philosophy 11 (1981): 77-93. 9. “Fallibilism and Knowing That One Knows,” The Philosophical Review 90 (1981): 77-93. Reprinted in Kenneth Lucey, ed., On Knowing and the Known: Introductory Readings in Epistemology, Prometheus Books, 1996. 10. “Stich and Nisbett on Justifying Inference Rules,” (co-authored with Earl Conee), Philosophy of Science 50 (1983): 326-331. 11. “Reliability and Justification,” The Monist 68 (1985): 159-174. 12. “Evidentialism,” (co-authored with Earl Conee), Philosophical Studies 48 (1985): 15-34. Reprinted in: Paul Moser and Arnold vander Nat, eds., Human Knowledge, Oxford University Press, 1986; Kenneth Lucey, ed., On Knowing and the Known: Introductory Readings in Epistemology, Prometheus Books, 1996: The International Research Library of Philosophy: Knowledge and Justification, Volume 2., 1996, and in E. Sosa and J. Kim, eds., Epistemology: An Anthology, Blackwell, 2000. 13. “Schmitt on `Reliability, Objectivity, and Justification',” The Australasian Journal of Philosophy 63 (1985): 354-360. 14. “Davidson's Theory of Propositional Attitudes,” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 16 (1986): 693-712. 15. “Rationality, Reliability, and Natural Selection,” Philosophy of Science 55 (1988): 218-227. 16. “Having Evidence,” Essays Presented to Edmund Gettier, edited by David Austin, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1988, pp. 83-104. 17. “Epistemic Obligations,” Philosophical Perspectives 2, Epistemology, edited by James Tomberlin, Ridgeview Publishing Co., 1988, pp. 235-256. Reprinted in: Louis Pojman, ed. The Theory of Knowledge, Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1993; Jack S. Crumley II, ed., Readings in Epistemology, Mayfield Publishing Co., 1999. 18. “Subjective and Objective Justification in Ethics and Epistemology,” The Monist 71 (1988):405-419. 19. “Foley's Subjective Foundationalism,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research50(1989): 149-158. 2 20. “Lehrer's Coherence Theory of Knowledge and Justification,” The Current State of the Coherence Theory, edited by John W. Bender, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989, pp. 69-78. 21. “Goldman on Epistemology and Cognitive Science,” Philosophia 19 (1989): 197-207. 22. “Klein on Certainty and Canonical Beliefs,” Doubting: Contemporary Perspectives on Skepticism, edited by Glenn Ross and Michael Roth, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990, pp. 121-126. 23. “Evidence,” A Companion to Epistemology, edited by Ernest Sosa and Jonathan Dancy, Cambridge University Press, 1992. 24. “Proper Functionalism,” Nous 27 (1993), pp. 34-50. 25. “Good Arguments,” Knowledge and the Social, edited by Fred Schmitt, Rowman and Littlefield, 1994, pp. 155-188. 26. “Evidence,” “Knowledge by Acquaintance,” and “Knowledge de re,” and “Epistemic Privacy,” The Dictionary of Philosophy edited by Robert Audi, Cambridge University Press, 1995. 27. “In Defense of Closure,” The Philosophical Quarterly 45 (1995): 487-494. 28. “Authoritarian Epistemology,” Philosophical Topics 23 (1995): 147-170. 29. “Sorensen's 'Thought Experiments,'" Informal Logic 17 (1995): 394-398. 30. “Plantinga, Gettier, and Warrant,” Warrant in Contemporary Epistemology: Essays in Honor of Plantinga's Theory of Knowledge, by Jonathan Kvanvig, Rowman &; Littlefield, 1996. 31. “Epistemology Since 1960,” (co-authored with Earl Conee) Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement, edited by Ernest Sosa, MacMillan, 1996. 32. “Evidentialism,” (co-authored with Earl Conee) Encyclopedia of Philosophy Supplement, edited by Ernest Sosa, MacMillan, 1996. 33. “Epistemology and Ethics,” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Peter Klein and Richard Foley, Routledge, 1998. 34. “The Principle of Charity,” Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Peter Klein and Richard Foley, Routledge, 1998. 35. “The Generality Problem for Reliabilism,” co-authored with Earl Conee, Philosophical Studies 89 (1998): 1-29. Reprinted in: Louis J. Pojman, ed., Theory of Knowledge, 2nd Edition, Wadsworth, 1998; and E. Sosa and J. Kim, eds., Epistemology: An Anthology, Blackwell, 2000. 36. “Methodological Naturalism in Epistemology,” The Blackwell Guide to Epistemology, edited by John Greco and Ernest Sosa, Blackwell, 1999, pp. 168-184. 37. “Contextualism and Skepticism,” Philosophical Perspectives 13, Epistemology, edited by James Tomberlin, Ridgeview Publishing Co., 1999, pp. 91-114. 38. “Naturalism in Epistemology,” EurAmerica 28 (September 1998): 1-38. 39. “Epistemology, Argumentation, and Citizenship,” The Paideia Project: Proceedings of the 20th World Congress of Philosophy, Volume 3, 1999, pp. 89-106. 40. “Integrating Critical Thinking Into the Teaching of Philosophy,” Prentice Hall Teaching Newsletter, 1999. 41. “The Ethics of Belief,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 60 (2000): 667-695. 42. “Kvanvig On Externalism and Epistemology Worth Doing,” The Southern Journal of Philosophy (Supplement) 37 (2000): 43-50. 43. “Skeptical Problems, Contextualist Solutions,” Philosophical Studies 103 (2001): 61-85. 3 44. “Voluntary Belief and Epistemic Evaluation,” Knowledge, Truth, and Duty: Essays on Epistemic Justification, Responsibility, and Virtue, edited by Matthias Steup (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), pp. 77-92. 45. “Internalism Defended,” (with Earl Conee) American Philosophical Quarterly 38 (2001): 1- 18. Also in Epistemology: Internalism and Externalism, edited by Hilary Kornblith, Blackwell, 2001, pp. 231-260. 46. “Naturalized Epistemology,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Ed Zalta, 2001 (online at Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy ). 47. “Epistemological Duties,” The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology, edited by Paul Moser (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), pp. 361-384. 48. “Reply to Adler and Levin,” (with Earl Conee) Philosophy and Phenomenological Research(2002): 98-105. 49. “Reasons Explanations and Pure Agency,” (with Andrei Buckareff) Philosophical Studies112 (2003): 135-45. 50. “Plantinga on Exclusivism,” Faith and Philosophy 20 (2003): 85-90. 51. “Chisholm's Internalism and Its Consequences,” Metaphilosophy 34 (2003): 603-620. 52. “Freedom and Contextualism,” Topics in Contemporary Philosophy Vol. II: Freedom and Determinism, edited by Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke, and David Shier, MIT Press, 2004. 53. “Comments on DeRose's 'Single Scoreboard Semantics,” Philosophical Studies 119 (2004): 23-33. 54. “In Search of Internalism and Externalism,” The Externalist Challenge, edited by Richard Schantz (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004), pp. 143-56. 55. “Foundational Justification,” in Sosa and His Critics, edited by John Greco, Blackwell, 2004, pp. 42-58. 56. “Foundational Beliefs and Empirical Possibilities,” Philosophical Issues 14 (2004): 132-147. 57. “Internalist Epistemic Evaluations,” Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, edited by Matthias Steup and Ernest Sosa (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2005), pp. 270-84. 58. “Respecting
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Skepticism and Pluralism Ways of Living a Life Of
    SKEPTICISM AND PLURALISM WAYS OF LIVING A LIFE OF AWARENESS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZHUANGZI #±r A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY AUGUST 2004 By John Trowbridge Dissertation Committee: Roger T. Ames, Chairperson Tamara Albertini Chung-ying Cheng James E. Tiles David R. McCraw © Copyright 2004 by John Trowbridge iii Dedicated to my wife, Jill iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing this research, I would like to express my appreciation first and foremost to my wife, Jill, and our three children, James, Holly, and Henry for their support during this process. I would also like to express my gratitude to my entire dissertation committee for their insight and understanding ofthe topics at hand. Studying under Roger Ames has been a transformative experience. In particular, his commitment to taking the Chinese tradition on its own terms and avoiding the tendency among Western interpreters to overwrite traditional Chinese thought with the preoccupations ofWestern philosophy has enabled me to broaden my conception ofphilosophy itself. Roger's seminars on Confucianism and Daoism, and especially a seminar on writing a philosophical translation ofthe Zhongyong r:pJm (Achieving Equilibrium in the Everyday), have greatly influenced my own initial attempts to translate and interpret the seminal philosophical texts ofancient China. Tamara Albertini's expertise in ancient Greek philosophy was indispensable to this project, and a seminar I audited with her, comparing early Greek and ancient Chinese philosophy, was part ofthe inspiration for my choice ofresearch topic. I particularly valued the opportunity to study Daoism and the Yijing ~*~ with Chung-ying Cheng g\Gr:p~ and benefited greatly from his theory ofonto-cosmology as a means of understanding classical Chinese philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae
    JAMES VAN CLEVE [email protected] October 17, 2018 Addresses School of Philosophy Home: Summer: University of Southern California 458 Stanford Drive 98 Sefton Drive Los Angeles, CA 90089 Claremont, CA 91711 Cranston, RI 02905 213-740-4084 909-625-5473 401-941-6513 Education B.A., The University of Iowa, 1969 M.A., The University of Rochester, 1972 Ph.D., The University of Rochester, 1974 (Dissertation Title: The Role of the Given in Empirical Knowledge) Professional Appointments University of Southern California: Professor of Philosophy, beginning Fall 2005. Visiting Professor of Philosophy, 2002-2003, Spring 2004, and Spring 2005. Brown University, Adjunct Professor, 2005-2018 Brown University: Professor of Philosophy, 1987-2005. Chair, Department of Philosophy, 1986-1991 and 1999-2003. Associate Professor, 1979-87; Assistant Professor, 1973-1979. Massachusetts Institute of Technology: Visiting Professor, Fall 2018 University of Iowa: Visiting Professor of Philosophy, Spring 2002. Duke University: Visiting Professor of Philosophy, Spring 1989, Fall 1991, and Spring 1993. Jadavpur University (Calcutta, India): Fulbright Visiting Professor, July 1980- February 1981. Honors and Awards Woodrow Wilson Dissertation Fellowship, 1972-73. Brown University Summer Stipend for Faculty Research, 1974. Brown University Wriston Fellowship ("to recognize significant previous accomplishments in innovative teaching or curricular improvement"), 1978. Fulbright Award to Lecture in India, July 1980 through January 1981. American Council of Learned Societies Fellowship, February 1981 through July 1981. Wayland Collegium Incentive Grant (to develop the course "Science, Perception, and Reality"), 1984. 2 National Humanities Center Fellowship, 1990-91. National Endowment for the Humanities grant to teach a Summer Seminar for College Teachers during July and August of 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Mit Einer Logischen Kritik Der Mathematischen Logik Und Bibliographie Der Logik
    GRUNDRISS DER PYRAMIDALEN LOGIK mit einer logischen Kritik der mathematischen Logik und Bibliographie der Logik Lehrmaterialien aus dem Philosophischen Institut der HHU Düsseldorf Forschungsabteilung für Wissenschaftstheorie Prof. Dr. L. Geldsetzer A AB AC ABD Copyright 2000 vorbehalten Kopieren zum Studiengebrauch erlaubt 2 INHALTSVERZEICHNIS Vorbemerkung Zum Konzept der pyramidalen Logik 4 I. Einführung 4 II. Die logischen Elemente 20 1. Intensionen 20 2. Extensionen 21 3. Der Begriff 24 a. Die reguläreBegriffsstrukturDielogische a. 24 b. Negative Begriffe 25 c. Der widersprüchliche Begriff (contradictio in adiecto bzw. contradictio in terminis) 26 d. Der Dispositionsbegriff 30 e. Der Wahrscheinlichkeitsbegriff 32 f. Der Zahlbegriff 33 g. Sogenannte Relationsbegriffe, Ähnlichkeitsbegriffe und "Familienähnlichkeit" 44 h. Der Begriff des Begriffs in der stoischen Logik 47 i. Methoden der Begriffsbildung: Induktion, Deduktion, Analyse und Synthese 50 4. Die Junktoren 55 a. Die urteilsbildendenDie a.Junktoren 57 1. Die unbeschränkteDie (allgemeine)1.Implikation 57 2. Das unbeschränkte (allgemeine) "Zukommen" 58 3. Die korrelierende Implikation 58 4. Die Kopula bzw. die materiale Implikationmateriale 58Kopula die Diebzw. 4. 5. Das spezielle "Zukommen" bzw. die formale Implikation oder Inklusion 58 6. Die Negation 59 7. Der Existenz- bzw. Produktjunktorbzw.Existenz- Der 7. 59 b. Die ausdrucksbildendenDie b. Junktoren 61 1. Die QuantifikationDie 1. 62 2. Die ÄquivalenzDie 2. 63 3. Die unvollständigeDie Disjunktion3. 63 4. Die vollständige Disjunktion oder Alternative 63 5. Die AdjunktionDie 5. 64 c. Die mathematischenJunktorenDie c. 65 1. Die Summenbildung Die 1. (Additionsjunktor) 68 2. Die SubtraktionDie (Differenzenjunktor)2. 68 3. Die ProduktbildungDie 3. (Multiplikationsjunktor) 68 4. Die Division (Quotienten- oder Proportionsjunktor) 69 5. Die PotenzbildungDie (Potenzjunktor)5.
    [Show full text]
  • EPISTEMIC CIRCULARITY: MALIGNANT and BENIGN Michael Bergmann
    EPISTEMIC CIRCULARITY: MALIGNANT AND BENIGN Michael Bergmann Consider the following dialogue: Juror #1: You know that witness named Hank? I have doubts about his trustworthiness. Juror #2: Well perhaps this will help you. Yesterday I overheard Hank claiming to be a trustworthy witness. Juror #1: So Hank claimed to be trustworthy did he? Well, that settles it then. I’m now convinced that Hank is trustworthy. Is the belief of Juror #1 that Hank is a trustworthy witness justified? Most of us would be inclined to say it isn’t. Juror #1 begins by having some doubts about Hank’s trustworthiness, and then he comes to believe that Hank is trustworthy. The problem is that he arrives at this belief on the basis of Hank’s own testimony. That isn’t reasonable. You can’t sensibly come to trust a doubted witness on the basis of that very witness’s testimony on his own behalf.1 Now consider the following soliloquy: Doubter: I have some doubts about the trustworthiness of my senses. After all, for all I know, they are deceiving me. Let’s see ... Hey, wait a minute. They are trustworthy! I recall many occasions in the past when I was inclined to hold certain perceptual beliefs. On each of those occasions, the beliefs I formed were true. I know that because the people I was with confirmed to me that they were true. By inductive reasoning, I can safely conclude from those past cases that my senses are trustworthy. There we go. It feels good to have those doubts about my senses behind me.
    [Show full text]
  • Cvnov2011.Pdf
    1 Barbara M. Sattler University of St. Andrews, Department of Philosophy Edgecliffe, The Scores St. Andrews, Fife KY16 9AR KY16 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 01334 462474 Positions held: Summer 2013 – present Permanent position at the University of St. Andrews, Department of Philosophy Summer Semester 2016 Gastprofessur für das Fachgebiet “Philosophie der Antike und Ge- genwart” at the Humboldt Universität (HU) Berlin Summer 2007 – 2013 Assistant Professor of Philosophy and the Humanities Program at Yale University; Secondary Appointment in Classics Summer 2005 – 2007 Tenure-track position at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Cham- paign, Department of Philosophy and Department of the Classics Candlemas semester 2002 Tutor in the Department of Philosophy at St. Andrews 1997 – 2000 Teaching and research assistantship with Prof. Theunissen, FU-Berlin, in metaphysics and ontology 1992 – 1995 Private Tutor in mathematics Education and Qualifications: Fall 2001 – June 2006: Freie Universität (FU) Berlin: PhD (summa cum laude) October 2004 - June 2005 Diplomatische Akademie Wien, certificate in history, international relations, law and modern languages June – July 2004 Wolfson College, Oxford: Academic Visitor Fall 2002 – summer 2003 University of Oxford: visiting graduate student February – June 2002 St. Andrews University: visiting graduate student February 2001 FU-Berlin: M.A. (with distinction) 1995 – 2000 FU-Berlin: Studies in Philosophy and German literature 1993 – 1995 University of Vienna: Studies in German Philology, Philosophy
    [Show full text]
  • Augustinian Christian Philosophy
    AUGUSTINIAN CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY How does Christianity bear on philosophy? Is there such a thing as Christian philosophy, or are there only Christians who are also philoso­ phers? How should Christianity and philosophy be related? Should they be related? In "Advice to Christian Philosophers" I said that Christian philosophers should display more autonomy: they have their own fish to fry, their own projects to pursue, (or their own axes to grind, as some might prefer to put it). Here I want to say more about what these projects (or fish, or axes) are like. And the right way to think about these matters, so it seems to me, is broadly Augustinian. Accordingly, I want to propose a program­ matic sketch (a very programmatic sketch) of a conception of Christian philosophy that grows out of some central Augustinian emphases. I don't claim, however, that Augustine in fact thought of Christian philosophy the way I shall suggest. The primary focus of my paper is not historical (that would in any event be beyond my competence); what I want to do is make a suggestion as to how we should think about Christian philosophy now; but this way of thinking of the matter grows out of Augustinian roots.! It's worth noting, furthermore, that what is at issue is not just a way of thinking about Christianity and philosophy, but about Christianity and scholarship more generally. There are at least four elements in Augustinian Christian philosophy. The first two of these are widely recognized and relatively uncontroversial: I shall therefore be brief about them.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquaintance and Assurance
    Philos Stud DOI 10.1007/s11098-011-9747-9 Acquaintance and assurance Nathan Ballantyne Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011 Abstract I criticize Richard Fumerton’s fallibilist acquaintance theory of nonin- ferential justification. Keywords Acquaintance Á Noninferential justification Á Assurance Á Skepticism Á Regress Á Richard Fumerton Should the acquaintance theorist be committed to fallibilism or infallibilism? Richard Fumerton (2010) and Ted Poston (2010) have recently discussed that question. Poston has argued that there is trouble for the acquaintance theorist either way—the theory faces a dilemma—and Fumerton has responded to Poston by defending a fallibilist acquaintance theory of noninferential justification. Here, I shall offer a new objection to the theory Fumerton defends. Fumerton claims that ‘‘[w]hen everything that is constitutive of a thought’s being true is immediately before consciousness, there is nothing more that one could want or need to justify a belief’’ (2001, p. 14). ‘‘What more,’’ asks Fumerton, ‘‘could one want as an assurance of truth than the truth-maker before one’s mind?’’ (2006a, p. 189). Yet Fumerton also grants that false beliefs can enjoy noninferential justification. This admission, I’ll contend, brings trouble for the acquaintance theorist whenever she asks whether she has assurance for a belief. In what follows, I shall outline Fumerton’s notion of philosophical assurance (Sect. 1) before turning to state his account of noninferential justification (Sect. 2), describing how assurance is a critical motivation for the acquaintance theory. Then I will argue that if the acquaintance theorist endorses fallibilism, as Fumerton does, N. Ballantyne (&) Philosophy Department, Fordham University, Collins Hall 101, 441 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Acquaintance and Skepticism About the Past
    OUP CORRECTED PROOF – FINAL, 9/1/2016, SPi 9 Acquaintance and Skepticism about the Past Ted Poston How long does it take you to read this sentence? Did you rely on memory at all in reading that sentence?1 What is the most complex thought you can entertain without relying on memory at all? These questions raise a fundamental epistemological issue concerning our ability to justify our extensive reliance on memory. Nearly every thought relies on memory. Even simple thoughts we entertain in the fleeting present—e.g., ‘green here now’—rely on our apparent memory that the meanings of our terms are constant and that the ‘I’ which now thinks is the same ‘I’ that thought a moment ago. My goal in this chapter is to consider the epistemological problem of how our beliefs about the past can be justified within an acquaintance theory. Fumerton explicitly acknowledges that the problem of justifying our beliefs about the past is the most fundamental epistemological problem (1985: 119), and yet his solution to the problem relies on acquaintance with the quasi-logical relation of making-probable which he strongly suspects is an illusion (1985: 218). I argue that an acquaintance theory does not offer an adequate solution to memory skepticism. At the same time I am not a skeptic and honesty requires a reply to memory skepticism. As Fumerton acknowledges, the problem is stark and the answers are few (1985: 185). I defend another response to memory skepticism which Fumerton rejects. I will argue for an epistemic conservative response to memory skepticism by arguing that the theoretical economy of a conservative epistemology combined with its virtue of actually addressing memory skepticism gives us a reason to accept it.
    [Show full text]
  • Education Or Indoctrination? Montaigne and Emerson on Preserving Freedom in the Teacher-Student Relationship Rebecca Sullivan Teachers College, Columbia University
    666 Montaigne and Emerson on Preserving Freedom in the Teacher-Student Relationship Education or Indoctrination? Montaigne and Emerson on Preserving Freedom in the Teacher-Student Relationship Rebecca Sullivan Teachers College, Columbia University INTRODUCTION In his Essays, Michel de Montaigne paints a self-portrait that champions individual judgment. In contemporary educational parlance, he is an advocate of critical thinking: a student’s ability to reflectively evaluate information, test assumptions, ask clarifying questions, and form judgments for herself.1 Individ- ual judgment is a hallmark of a learner’s freedom because it indicates that she is not merely repeating inherited wisdom, but personally holds a conviction. Enabling such freedom in students requires careful consideration of the rela- tionship between teacher and student in learning. In this article, I consider how teacher-student positionality impacts individual judgment using the example of Michel de Montaigne and Ralph Waldo Emerson. Montaigne’s Essays raise the still-relevant question of the relationship between inherited wisdom and personal experience in forming individual judg- ments. However, Montaigne fails to offer a conclusive answer. While Montaigne draws heavily on past thinkers, he gives precedence to his own experience over inherited wisdom in forming judgments. This can be seen, for example, in his essay “Of Friendship,” in which he references past thinkers, but rejects their formulations of friendship when they fail to accord with his own experience. However, while Montaigne articulates the prominence of personal experience over inherited wisdom in forming individual judgments, the form of his writ- ing—the essay—suggests the opposite. The colloquial, conversational style Montaigne employs in essays such as “Of Friendship” invites the reader to trust in Montaigne’s wisdom without having recourse to her own experience.
    [Show full text]
  • Corel Ventura
    Richard Fumerton Epistemology. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing 2006. Pp. x + 145. US$51.95 (cloth ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-2566-6); US$19.95 (paper ISBN-13: 978-1-4051-2567-3). This book will interest those who teach undergraduate or graduate episte- mology, like the idea of using a single-author text, but are unsatisfied with the current options. It differs in a few ways from books like Richard Feld- mans Epistemology, Robert Audis Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduc- tion to the Theory of Knowledge, Laurence Bonjours Epistemology, and Adam Mortons A Guide Through the Theory of Knowledge. Chapter 1 begins with propositional knowledge and the evaluation of epistemic reasons for belief. The rest of the chapter draws a distinction between metaepistemology and applied epistemology. Applied epistemology is concerned with what we know and how we know it. Meta-epistemology is concerned with what knowledge is. Though this makes meta-epistemology more like normative ethics, Fumerton does not label it normative epistemol- ogy because of his qualms with thinking of epistemology as normative he returns to this issue in Chapter 3. Newcomers to epistemology will find much of this book difficult, especially Chapter 2, The Analysis of Knowledge. It begins with familiar reasons for including truth and belief conditions on knowledge. Fumerton says evidence is also needed. However, lottery cases suggest that the evidence must be strong enough that it entails the truth of the proposition believed. This coupled with Closure the principle that if you know P, and you know P entails Q, then you are in a position to know Q leads to skepticism.
    [Show full text]
  • Does Pyrrhonism Have Practical Or Epistemic Value? 49
    DiegoE.Machuca Does Pyrrhonism HavePractical or Epistemic Value? 1Introduction My purpose in this paper is to examine whether Pyrrhonian scepticism, as this stance is described in Sextus Empiricus’sextant works,has practical or epistemic value. More precisely, Iwould like to consider whether the Pyrrhonist’ssuspension of judg- ment (epochē)and undisturbedness (ataraxia)can be deemed to be of practical or epistemic value. By “practical” value Imean both moral value and prudential value. Moral value refers to moral rightness and wrongness; prudential value to per- sonal or social well-being.Hence, when Iask whether the Pyrrhonist’ssuspension and undisturbedness have practical value, Imean whether they make us behave in amannerthat is morallyright or wrong,and whether they allow us to attain those goals thatwould make it possible to live well. As for “epistemic” value, it ba- sicallyrefers to the values of attaining truth and avoiding error. Hence, when Iask whether the Pyrrhonist’ssuspension has epistemic value, Imean whether it allows us to attain truth and avoid error.Mymain focus will be the practical value of both suspension and undisturbedness, because this is the value thatscholars of an- cient philosophycritical of Pyrrhonism have emphasised. The reason for examining the epistemic value of suspension is thatdoing so will enable afuller assessment of the significance of Pyrrhonism as akind of philosophy, which is my primary concern. Iwill begin by brieflydescribing the states of suspension and undisturbedness and their connection, and by succinctlyconsideringsome objections to the effect that,despite claiming to suspend judgmentacross the board, Pyrrhonists actually hold anumber of beliefs. Thiswill provide the necessary framework for the subse- quent discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism
    Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism Edited on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies by Giuseppe Veltri Managing Editor: Yoav Meyrav Editorial Board Heidrun Eichner, Talya Fishman, Racheli Haliva, Henrik Lagerlund, Reimund Leicht, Stephan Schmid, Carsten Wilke, Irene Zwiep Volume 6 Sceptical Paths Enquiry and Doubt from Antiquity to the Present Edited by Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, and Emidio Spinelli The series Studies and Texts in Scepticism is published on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies ISBN 978-3-11-058960-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-059104-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-059111-8 ISSN 2568-9614 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Licence. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2019947115 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, Emidio Spinelli, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Ms Cod. Levy 115, fol. 158r: Maimonides, More Nevukhim, Beginn von Teil III. Printing & binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Introduction 1 Carlos Lévy Philo of Alexandria vs. Descartes: An Ignored Jewish
    [Show full text]