DOCSLIB.ORG

The Structure and Grounding of Epistemic Justification

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Structure and Grounding of Epistemic Justification THE STRUCTURE AND GROUNDING OF EPISTEMIC JUSTIFICATION DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University By William A. Roche, B.S., M.S. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2006 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor George Pappas, Advisor Professor Louise Antony _______________________________________ Professor William Taschek Advisor Graduate Program in Philosophy Copyright by William A. Roche 2006 ABSTRACT I articulate and defend a new version of the coherence theory of epistemic justification. It is new, in part, because, unlike traditional varieties of coherentism, it is externalist—viz., it has the consequence that justification supervenes, in part, on things that are neither mental nor supervenient on the mental. In other words, my theory entails that there could be mental duplicates (i.e., cognizers with the same beliefs, the same experiences, etc.) whose beliefs differ in justification. The theory, overall, has three distinguishing components. First, there is an explanationist component, which says, in short, that an inductive inference (or inferential relation) is cogent only if it is explanatorily virtuous—where one way to be explanatorily virtuous is to be an instance of inference to the best explanation. In this respect, my account is in the spirit of both William Lycan’s brand of coherentism, and the brand oft attributed to Gilbert Harman and Wilfrid Sellars. Second, there is a meta-perspectivalist component, which says (among other things) that S has good reason for thinking that p obtains only if from S’s perspective it is likely that he is connected (e.g., causally) to p. This, when fully spelled out, has the result that S’s belief system is coherent only if S has a view as to how he (or, better, his belief system) is connected to the outside world, and according to which the mechanisms involved (e.g., vision) are reliable. And third, there is a veridicality component, which requires that S’s reasons be true, and that S’s reasons for his reasons be true, and so on. This, together with the meta- perspectivalist component, requires that S be correct as to how he is reliably connected to the outside world. This is what makes my position externalist. I argue positively for each of these ii three distinguishing components, and, in doing so, refute my theory’s chief rivals in the coherentist camp. It is widely thought that coherence theories are hopeless, because of objections such as the Alternative-Systems Objection (which starts with the claim that there are lots of incompatible yet fully coherent belief systems such that any belief whatsoever is a member of at least one such system) and the Isolation Objection (which focuses on the alleged fact that coherence neither involves nor requires any sort of connection, such as a causal connection, to the outside world). I argue against these objections on three fronts. I argue that the coherentist can be an externalist, and that the objections fail against externalist coherentism. I argue that internalist foundationalism is faced with similar objections—so that were internalist coherentism to fall, internalist foundationalism too would fall. And, last, I argue against the objections directly, arguing that each version thereof, when fully fleshed out, has either a false premise or a fallacious sub-argument. The upshot is that, contrary to orthodox epistemology, there is nothing to be learned—vis-à-vis the question of whether justification is skyscraper-like in structure (as the foundationalist supposes)—from either the Alternative-Systems Objection or the Isolation Objection. It is also widely thought that, even setting aside these stock objections, foundationalist theories are superior to coherentist theories because, unlike coherentist theories, they allow a role for experiences in justification. With coherentist theories, the space of reasons (to borrow a phrase from Sellars) is restricted to the space of beliefs—so that only beliefs can serve as reasons. With foundationalist theories, in contrast, the space of reasons includes not just the space of beliefs, but also the space of experiences. The view, in brief, is that some beliefs are justified non-inferentially by experiences (e.g., visual experiences), and that the beliefs so justified serve as the foundation of justification. I argue that, initial appearances notwithstanding, experiences are unfit to serve as reasons—either for or against beliefs. I argue in addition, however, that there is a contingent respect in which experiences are nonetheless required for justification, in that, iii though they cannot themselves serve as reasons, they can (and contingently do) help in enabling beliefs to serve as reasons. The ultimate payoff is philosophical understanding of the structure and grounding of justification—an understanding, that is, that justification is coherentist in structure and externalist in grounding. iv To my parents, Kent and Brenda v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am greatly, if not immeasurably, indebted to George Pappas, my advisor. He has thoughtfully read and commented on several versions of nearly every chapter, and—both in person and in writing—has always served for me as a model of how to do philosophy properly. This project has benefited immensely from his guidance (though, as he is a reliabilist and this project is a defense of coherentism, probably not as much as he would have liked). I owe a special thanks to Louise Antony and William Taschek (my other two readers), Robert Batterman, and to the rest of the faculty in the philosophy department here at the Ohio State University. The encouragement and critical feedback that I have received from them have helped tremendously. I have discussed nearly every aspect of this dissertation with William Melanson, Joshua Smith, and my brother, Michael. This has aided not just in clarifying and strengthening my overall position, but also in keeping what turned out to be a rather cumbersome task relatively enjoyable. I should also mention T. M. Reed, whose mentoring (while I was an undergraduate in philosophy at the University of Utah) I will always remember, and will surely never be able to repay. To all these people (and countless others), I give my sincere thanks. vi VITA BACKGROUND AND EDUCATION July 4, 1975, Born, Pocatello, Idaho 1997, B.S., University of Utah, Philosophy 1998, M.S., University of Utah, Philosophy 1999 - 2002, Teaching Assistant, The Ohio State University, Philosophy 2002 - Present, Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Philosophy FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Philosophy Areas of Specialization: Epistemology, Philosophy of Science vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................II ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..............................................................................................................VI VITA............................................................................................................................................. VII 1 THE VIEW—ROUGHLY SKETCHED......................................................................................1 1.1 The Question ..........................................................................................................................1 1.2 The Foundationalism/Coherentism Debate ............................................................................6 1.3 Some Examples....................................................................................................................11 1.4 Looking Ahead.....................................................................................................................14 1.4.1 Moderate Explanationism..............................................................................................16 1.4.2 Meta-Perspectivalism ....................................................................................................22 1.4.3 Veridicalism...................................................................................................................23 1.5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................30 2 THE ALTERNATIVE-SYSTEMS AND ISOLATION OBJECTIONS....................................33 2.1 The Objections .....................................................................................................................34 2.1.1 The Alternative-Systems Objection (ASO) ...................................................................35 2.1.2 The Isolation Objection (IO) .........................................................................................38 2.2 The First Rebuttal.................................................................................................................40 2.3 The Second Rebuttal ............................................................................................................44 2.4 The Third Rebuttal ...............................................................................................................50 2.4.1 Against the ASO 1.........................................................................................................50 2.4.2 Against the ASO 2.........................................................................................................52 2.4.3 Against the ASO 3.........................................................................................................53
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Should You Believe What You Hear?
    Should You Believe What You Hear? Dr. Allan Hazlett Much of what we think about the world we believe on the basis of what other people say. But is this trust in other people's testimony justified? This week, we’ll investigate how this question was addressed by two great philosophers of the Scottish Enlightenment, David Hume (1711 - 1776) and Thomas Reid (1710 - 1796). Hume and Reid's dispute about testimony represents a clash between two worldviews that would continue to clash for centuries: a skeptical and often secular worldview, eager to question everything (represented by Hume), and conservative and often religious worldview, keen to defend common sense (represented by Reid). Part One - Introduction: Hume on Testimony and Miracles Testimony and believing what others tell you. Enlightenment 1700-1800 Intellectual autonomy Hume – Essays on Miracles “there is no species of reasoning more common, more useful, and even necessary to human life, than that which is derived from the testimony of men” What is distinctive of "naturalistic" approaches to philosophy? (Select all that apply.) No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of Nature. No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of supernatural phenomena No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of God No appeal to, or reliance on, the notion of human societies. Never believe a miracle based upon testimony Assumption of testimony: You have to have evidence that the person is speaking is likely to be right. Evidentialism – “A wise man…proportions his belief to the evidence.” Which of the following captures Hume's assumption about basing beliefs on testimony? To properly base a belief on testimony, you must have independent evidence that testimony is true.
    [Show full text]
  • A Dispositional, Internalist, Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology
    This is a repository copy of A Dispositional, Internalist, Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology. White Rose Research Online URL for this paper: http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/94260/ Version: Accepted Version Article: Byerly, T.R. (2014) A Dispositional, Internalist, Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology. Logos and Episteme : an International Journal of Epistemology, V (4). pp. 399-424. ISSN 2069-3052 Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version - refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher’s website. Takedown If you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing [email protected] including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. [email protected] https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ A Dispositional Internalist Evidentialist Virtue Epistemology This paper articulates and defends a novel version of internalist evidentialism which employs dispositions to account for the relation of evidential support. In section one, I explain internalist evidentialist views generally, highlighting the way in which the relation of evidential support stands at the heart of these views. I then discuss two leading ways in which evidential support has been understood by evidentialists, and argue that an account of support which employs what I call epistemic dispositions remedies difficulties arguably faced by these two leading accounts.
    [Show full text]
  • Objects and Their Environments: from Aristotle to Ecological Ontology1
    Objects and Their Environments: From Aristotle to Ecological Ontology1 Barry Smith Department of Philosophy, Center for Cognitive Science and National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, University at Buffalo From Andrew Frank, Jonathan Raper and Jean-Paul Cheylan (eds.), The Life and Motion of Socio- Economic Units (GISDATA 8), London: Taylor and Francis, 2001, 79–97. Introduction What follows is a contribution to the theory of space and of spatial objects. It takes as its starting point the philosophical subfield of ontology, which can be defined as the science of what is: of the various types and categories of objects and relations in all realms of being. More specifically, it begins with ideas set forth by Aristotle in his Categories and Metaphysics, two works which constitute the first great contributions to ontological science. Because Aristotle’s ontological ideas were developed prior to the scientific discoveries of the modern era, he approached the objects and relations of everyday reality with the same ontological seriousness with which scientists today approach the objects of physics. We shall seek to show that what Aristotle has to say about these commonsensical objects and relations can, when translated into more formal terms, be of use also to contemporary ontologists. More precisely, we shall argue that his ideas can contribute to the development of a rigorous theory of those social and institutional components of everyday reality – the settings of human behavior – which are the subject of this volume. When modern-day philosophers turn their attentions to ontology they begin not with Aristotle but rather, in almost every case, with a set-theoretic ontology of the sort which is employed in standard model-theoretic semantics.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Ideal Epistemology? 2
    1 Why Ideal Epistemology? 2 3 4 5 6 1 Ideal and nonideal epistemology 7 What are ideal and nonideal epistemology? We can begin by gesturing toward some loose sociological 8 trends: nonideal epistemology ideal epistemology informal, non-mathy formal, mathy1 talks about beliefs talks about credences2 emphasizes relation to emphasizes relation to decision knowledge theory uses “justified” uses “rational” uses “reasons” language doesn’t unimpressive babies superbabies written in Word written in LaTeX . 9 10 Ideal epistemologists are concerned with questions about what perfectly rational, cognitively ide- 11 alized, computationally unlimited believers would believe. (Note: I use the term “belief” broadly for any 12 doxastic state, including binary belief, credences, comparative confidence, etc.; mutatis mutandis for 13 “believe” and “believer”.) Often this involves presupposing or defending epistemic norms that, arguably, 14 no actual humans can satisfy: norms mandating 15 logical omniscience; ◦ 1 Note that despite this trend, the ideal/nonideal distinction in epistemology is strictly orthogonal to the formal/informal distinction. Theorists of bounded rationality often pursue formal nonideal epistemology; I personally often do informal ideal epistemology. 2 Again, despite the trend, this distinction is orthogonal to the ideal/nonideal distinction: AGM models of belief revision are a form of ideal epistemology, for example (Alchourrón et al., 1985). And much of the bounded rationality literature focuses on credence. 1 1 consistency and closure of binary beliefs; ◦ 2 infinitely precise credences; ◦ 3 credences satisfying the Kolmogorov probability axioms; ◦ 4 updating by conditionalization; ◦ 5 immediate update (rather than temporally extended reasoning); ◦ 6 closure of doxastic attitudes under boolean operations; ◦ 3 7 ...and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • Bi-Level Evidentialism and Reformed Apologetics
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Asbury Theological Seminary Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers Volume 11 Issue 3 Article 2 7-1-1994 Bi-Level Evidentialism and Reformed Apologetics Michael L. Czapkay Sudduth Follow this and additional works at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy Recommended Citation Sudduth, Michael L. Czapkay (1994) "Bi-Level Evidentialism and Reformed Apologetics," Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers: Vol. 11 : Iss. 3 , Article 2. Available at: https://place.asburyseminary.edu/faithandphilosophy/vol11/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers by an authorized editor of ePLACE: preserving, learning, and creative exchange. BI-LEVEL EVIDENTIALISM AND REFORMED APOLOGETICS Michael L. Czapkay Sudduth In this paper I apply William Alston's "epistemic level distinctions" to the debate between evidentialist and anti-evidentialist approaches to Christian apologetics in the Reformed tradition. I first clarify the nature of this debate by showing that it rests fundamentally on a tension between the desire to have a comprehensive Christian apologetic and the belief that the Holy Spirit plays a special epistemic role in belief-formation, such that certain beliefs are formed and justified by conditions unique to Christian religious experi­ ence. Secondly, I argue that even if S's belief that p is immediately justified (through such privileged modes of belief-formation), (I) an evidentialist requirement can be placed on the higher-level belief that P* (p is immediately justified) and (2) apologetics can draw on the reasons which confer justifi­ cation on P*, thereby providing indirect support for p.
    [Show full text]
  • Objectivity in the Feminist Philosophy of Science
    OBJECTIVITY IN THE FEMINIST PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requisites for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Karen Cordrick Haely, M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 2003 Dissertation Committee: Approved by Professor Louise M. Antony, Adviser Professor Donald C. Hubin _______________________ Professor George Pappas Adviser Philosophy Graduate Program ABSTRACT According to a familiar though naïve conception, science is a rigorously neutral enterprise, free from social and cultural influence, but more sophisticated philosophical views about science have revealed that cultural and personal interests and values are ubiquitous in scientific practice, and thus ought not be ignored when attempting to understand, describe and prescribe proper behavior for the practice of science. Indeed, many theorists have argued that cultural and personal interests and values must be present in science (and knowledge gathering in general) in order to make sense of the world. The concept of objectivity has been utilized in the philosophy of science (as well as in epistemology) as a way to discuss and explore the various types of social and cultural influence that operate in science. The concept has also served as the focus of debates about just how much neutrality we can or should expect in science. This thesis examines feminist ideas regarding how to revise and enrich the concept of objectivity, and how these suggestions help achieve both feminist and scientific goals. Feminists offer us warnings about “idealized” concepts of objectivity, and suggest that power can play a crucial role in determining which research programs get labeled “objective”.
    [Show full text]
  • Episteme IS FOUNDATIONAL a PRIORI JUSTIFICATION INDISPENSABLE?
    Episteme http://journals.cambridge.org/EPI Additional services for Episteme: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here IS FOUNDATIONAL A PRIORI JUSTIFICATION INDISPENSABLE? Ted Poston Episteme / Volume 10 / Issue 03 / September 2013, pp 317 - 331 DOI: 10.1017/epi.2013.25, Published online: 07 August 2013 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1742360013000257 How to cite this article: Ted Poston (2013). IS FOUNDATIONAL A PRIORI JUSTIFICATION INDISPENSABLE?. Episteme, 10, pp 317-331 doi:10.1017/epi.2013.25 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/EPI, IP address: 108.195.178.103 on 23 Aug 2013 Episteme, 10, 3 (2013) 317–331 © Cambridge University Press doi:10.1017/epi.2013.25 is foundational a priori justification indispensable? ted poston1 [email protected] abstract Laurence BonJour’s (1985) coherence theory of empirical knowledge relies heavily on a traditional foundationalist theory of a priori knowledge. He argues that a foundationalist, rationalist theory of a priori justication is indispensable for a coherence theory. BonJour (1998) continues this theme, arguing that a traditional account of a priori justication is indispensable for the justication of putative a priori truths, the justication of any non-observational belief and the justication of reasoning itself. While BonJour’s indispensability arguments have received some critical discussion (Gendler 2001; Harman 2001; Beebe 2008), no one has inves- tigated the indispensability arguments from a coherentist perspective. This perspec- tive offers a fruitful take on BonJour’s arguments, because he does not appreciate the depth of the coherentist alternative to the traditional empiricist-rationalist debate.
    [Show full text]
  • Feminism & Philosophy Vol.5 No.1
    APA Newsletters Volume 05, Number 1 Fall 2005 NEWSLETTER ON FEMINISM AND PHILOSOPHY FROM THE EDITOR, SALLY J. SCHOLZ NEWS FROM THE COMMITTEE ON THE STATUS OF WOMEN, ROSEMARIE TONG ARTICLES MARILYN FISCHER “Feminism and the Art of Interpretation: Or, Reading the First Wave to Think about the Second and Third Waves” JENNIFER PURVIS “A ‘Time’ for Change: Negotiating the Space of a Third Wave Political Moment” LAURIE CALHOUN “Feminism is a Humanism” LOUISE ANTONY “When is Philosophy Feminist?” ANN FERGUSON “Is Feminist Philosophy Still Philosophy?” OFELIA SCHUTTE “Feminist Ethics and Transnational Injustice: Two Methodological Suggestions” JEFFREY A. GAUTHIER “Feminism and Philosophy: Getting It and Getting It Right” SARA BEARDSWORTH “A French Feminism” © 2005 by The American Philosophical Association ISSN: 1067-9464 BOOK REVIEWS Robin Fiore and Hilde Lindemann Nelson: Recognition, Responsibility, and Rights: Feminist Ethics and Social Theory REVIEWED BY CHRISTINE M. KOGGEL Diana Tietjens Meyers: Being Yourself: Essays on Identity, Action, and Social Life REVIEWED BY CHERYL L. HUGHES Beth Kiyoko Jamieson: Real Choices: Feminism, Freedom, and the Limits of the Law REVIEWED BY ZAHRA MEGHANI Alan Soble: The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings REVIEWED BY KATHRYN J. NORLOCK Penny Florence: Sexed Universals in Contemporary Art REVIEWED BY TANYA M. LOUGHEAD CONTRIBUTORS ANNOUNCEMENTS APA NEWSLETTER ON Feminism and Philosophy Sally J. Scholz, Editor Fall 2005 Volume 05, Number 1 objective claims, Beardsworth demonstrates Kristeva’s ROM THE DITOR “maternal feminine” as “an experience that binds experience F E to experience” and refuses to be “turned into an abstraction.” Both reconfigure the ground of moral theory by highlighting the cultural bias or particularity encompassed in claims of Feminism, like philosophy, can be done in a variety of different objectivity or universality.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Objects(1)
    Social Objects(1) Barry Smith Department of Philosophy, Center for Cognitive Science, and National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis University at Buffalo [email protected] 1. Introduction 1.1 Two Dogmas of Reductionism Two persistent tendencies have made themselves felt in the course of philosophical history. On the one hand is the Ockhamite tendency, the tendency to embrace one or other of a small repertoire of simplified ontologies, for example atomism or monism, together with a view according to which more complicated entities are to be ‘reduced’ by one or other means to the favoured class of simples. On the other hand is Cartesianism, the tendency to embrace one or other foundationalist doctrine in epistemology, or in other words to prize episteme at the expense of doxa. The two tendencies reinforce each other mutually. Thus foundationalism tilts the attention of philosophers in the direction of ontological simples, for it is held that in relation to the latter knowledge secure against doubt is more easily attainable. Philosophers are thus shielded from any concern with the complex mesoscopic (medium-sized, middle-range, human-scale) objects of our everyday environment and of the social world, since the latter is, after all, a realm of mere opinion, not worthy of the attention of those striving after rigour. Austrian philosophers have been marked no less than philosophers in other traditions by both of these tendencies. Brentano, especially, was an avowed foundationalist, a proponent of psychological immanentism, and in his later philosophizing he embraced an ontology according to which all objects must belong to the single category of thing or substance.
    [Show full text]
  • Barry Smith Kasimir Twardowski
    BARRY SMITH KASIMIR TWARDOWSKI: AN ESSAY ON THE BORDERLINES OF ONTOLOGY, PSYCHOLOGY AND LOGIC1 1. Introduction The influence of Kasimir Twardowski on modern Polish philos­ ophy is all -pervasive. As is well known, almost all important 20th century Polish philosophers went through the hard training of his courses in Lvov. Twardowski instilled in his students an enduring concern for clarity and rigour. He taught them to regard philosophy as a collaborative effort, a matter of disciplined discussion and argument. And he encouraged them to work together with scientists from other disciplines above all with psycho­logists, and also with mathematicians - so that the Lvov school of philosophy would gradually evolve into the Warsaw school of logic2. Kasimir Skrzypna - Twardowski, Ritter von Ogonczyk, was born in Vienna in 1866, the son of a high official in the Austro-Hun­ garian Ministry of Finance. He was educated at the Theresianum, where, as in all Austrian grammar schools, a course in philos­ ophy (which is to say, psychology plus logic) was compulsory in the final year3. The officially prescribed textbook for this course for much of the second half of the 19th century (and in many cases also later) was the Philosophische Propadeutik of Robert Zimmermann, first published in Vienna in 1853 and transla - ted into Hungarian and Italian shortly thereafter. Zimmermann's work, the logical sections of which are little more than lightly disguised summaries of Bolzano's Wissenschaftsfehre prepared at Bolzano's own request, can now be seen to have done much to bring about a renaissance of Bolzanianism in Austria in a period when Bolzano's own writings were officially suppressed.
    [Show full text]
  • Reverse Engineering Epistemic Evaluations
    Reverse Engineering Epistemic Evaluations Sinan Dogramaci∗ 1 A Puzzle: What Is the Function of Epistemically Evaluative Language? What is the function of words like `irrational' as used in ordinary epistemic evaluations? I'm thinking of simple evaluations: criticism like `Smith's belief that Obama's a Muslim is irrational' or praise like `Green's belief that all humans are mortal is rational'. We don't make such claims just for the sake of it, just for fun, or for no reason at all. So what is the real point or purpose of this epistemically evaluative aspect of our linguistic practice? It must have some utility, but what? What would we lose if epistemically evaluative words suddenly disappeared from our vocabulary?1 The question requires some motivation, since discovering a word's func- tion doesn't necessarily call for armchair philosophy. Some words might serve a hidden psycho-sociological function that only empirical science can uncover. This might be true of words like `hello' and `thanks'. And for many words, their basic function isn't particularly mysterious. For example, we ∗I pronounce it, when speaking English, like this: sin·on dor·uh·mudge·uh. 1The question of this paper thus contrasts with the timeworn questions of how to give necessary and sufficient conditions for this or that philosophically interesting property. There are, however, a few excellent philosophical explorations of the function of this or that philosophically interesting word or concept. In philosophy of logic and language, Quine offered an elegantly simple insight about the utility of the truth predicate which precipitated the contemporary development of deflationism about truth; see Quine (1970), Leeds (1978), Horwich (1990/98), and Field (1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Reinach and Bolzano: Towards a Theory of Pure Logic
    Reinach and Bolzano: Towards A Theory of Pure Logic KIMBERLY JARA Y, WHfrid Laurier University The work of Adolf Reinach (1883-1917) on states of affairs, judgment, and speech acts bears striking similarities to Bernard Bolzano's (1781- 1848) work in the area of general logic. It is my belief that these similarities suggest that Reinach used Bolzano's logical work to assist with his own. Three considerations support this view. First, Bolzano's work in Die Wissenschaftslehre ( Theory of Science) was considered by Husserl to be the necessary foundation for any work in logic. Second, Bolzano's logic was a suitable alternative to Immanuel Kant's in that he formulated his essential relations as inexistent yet real, not Platonic or belonging to a transcendental realm. Third, Reinach did not openly criticize Bolzano 1 in the manner he did the Austrians of the Brentano school, suggesting that Bolzano's logic was more complementary with his own. 2 Due to his untimely death in 1917, Reinach's work on states of affairs and logic remains incomplete, some of it even lost or destroyed. I shall here offer a few brief remarks about Husserl as he was Reinach's mentor and friend, but an in depth discussion of the differences between Rein­ ach and Husserl will not be offered in this paper. Secondary literature tells us that Reinach admired Husserl's Logical Investigations, in which phenomenology was said to concern itself with "primarily the discovery of the terra firma of pure logic, of the Sachen (things) in the sense of objective entities in general
    [Show full text]