PHL232H1 Lecture Notes - Lecture 3: Regress Argument, Foundationalism, Consistency
Monday, September 19, 2016
1
PHL232 Lecture 3
Quiz
- Epistemic Foundationalist view for Epistemic justification—the regress argument.
• How do the premises generate the conclusion according to which there is no
knowledge?
- The foundationalist wants to reject his conclusion by showing that one of the
central premises is false.
• Premise 1: Assertion of the Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge.
- What is the Tripartite Analysis is: A view about what knowledge is.
• This says that knowledge is when you have a justified true belief about in
a proposition. Knowledge is justified true belief (JTB analysis)
• Premise 2: All justification is inferentialist.
- What does this mean?
• If all justification were inferentialist then if someone was justified in
believing something, that must be because that subject is in possession of
a valid argument for that conclusion.
• Premise 3: Justification is linear
- If you are justified in believing something because it is justified, it must mean
that you are antecedently justified in believing those premises.
- Premises 2 and 3 generate a regress: If I am justified in believing something, I must
be in possession of a valid argument from some series of premises—that justify my
belief. The problem is where to antecedently justify my premises.
• What if there is no justified true belief? Then there must be no knowledge. This is
the Epistemic Regress Argument.
find more resources at oneclass.com
find more resources at oneclass.com
Document Summary
The foundationalist wants to reject his conclusion by showing that one of the central premises is false: premise 1: assertion of the tripartite analysis of knowledge. What is the tripartite analysis is: a view about what knowledge is: this says that knowledge is when you have a justified true belief about in a proposition. Knowledge is justified true belief (jtb analysis: premise 2: all justification is inferentialist. If you are justified in believing something because it is justified, it must mean that you are antecedently justified in believing those premises. Premises 2 and 3 generate a regress: if i am justified in believing something, i must be in possession of a valid argument from some series of premises that justify my belief. They use this argument to suggest that we abandon the view that all justification is inferentialist. This means there must be basic beliefs that don"t require other beliefs to be justified.
