Jonathan L. Kvanvig

Understanding has a special kind of value that other epistemic states such as knowledge do not, and this fact threatens the justification for the focus on knowledge that the history of epistemology displays. Elsewhere it has been argued that knowledge does not possess this special value. There are a couple of lines of argument, however, that threaten to extend the denial of this special value for knowledge to a denial of a special value for understanding. Underlying all such challenges is the obvious fact that the language of knowing and the language of understanding are closely related. In this discussion it is argued that the kind of understanding that we prize most is immune from the concerns that have plagued the theory of knowledge.

This is the sixth volume of the Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion series. As with earlier volumes, these chapters follow the tradition of providing a non-sectarian and non-partisan snapshot of the subdiscipline of philosophy of religion. This subdiscipline has become an increasingly important one within philosophy over the last century, and especially over the past half century, having emerged as an identifiable subfield within this time frame along with other emerging subfields such as the philosophy of science and the philosophy of language. This volume continues the initial intention behind the series of attracting the best work from the premier philosophers of religion, as well as including top philosophers outside this area when their work and interests intersect with issues in the philosophy of religion. This inclusive approach to the series provides an opportunity to mitigate some of the costs of greater specialization in our disciplines, while at the same time inviting greater interest in the work being done in the philosophy of religion.

This paper focuses on Pittard’s path to rationalism. It begins from the master argument Pittard identifies against rational disagreement among epistemic peers. It raises an issue for Pittard’s endorsement of the first premise of that argument, but focuses primarily on the third premise. It suggests a way of denying the third premise beyond the possibilities Pittard identifies, and then questions the strategy Pittard uses for ruling out competitors to his rationalism for defending the possibility of partisan justification in cases of peer disagreement.

Chapter 9 postulates that inclusivism is a middle position between Exclusivism and Pluralism, but current formulations suffer from limitations. First, Rahner’s version is put in Christian terms, but if it is supposed to be metatheoretic, it needs a formulation that is religiously neutral in terms of truth. Second, attempts to generate such neutrality run into the difficulty of being unable to delineate exactly what distinguishes this middle position from fully relativistic Pluralism. The solution to both problems, the chapter argues, is to adopt a broader understanding of faith, one that is not centrally cognitive, one which explains why faith is a generic virtue in any context, and one which gives a way of distinguishing Inclusivism from its alternatives. The key element of the proposal is that, if faith is not centrally cognitive, there is nothing about this attitude that makes an appeal to it a partisan one with respect to the universe of faiths.

The paradox of knowability, derived from a proof by Frederic Fitch in 1963, is one of the deepest paradoxes concerning the nature of truth. Jonathan Kvanvig argues that the depth of the paradox has not been adequately appreciated. It has long been known that the paradox threatens antirealist conceptions of truth according to which truth is epistemic. If truth is epistemic, what better way to express that idea than to maintain that all truths are knowable? In the face of the paradox, however, such a characterization threatens to undermine antirealism. If Fitch's proof is valid, then one can be an antirealist of this sort only by endorsing the conclusion of the proof that all truths are known.Realists about truth have tended to stand on the sidelines and cheer the difficulties faced by their opponents from Fitch's proof. Kvanvig argues that this perspective is wholly unwarranted. He argues that there are two problems raised by the paradox, one that threatens antirealism about truth and the other that threatens everybody's view about truth, realist or antirealist. The problem facing antirealism has had a number of proposed solutions over the past 40 years, and the results have not been especially promising with regard to the first problem. The second problem has not even been acknowledged, however, and the proposals regarding the first problem are irrelevant to the second problem. This book thus provides a thorough investigation of the literature on the paradox, and also proposes a solution to the deeper of the two problems raised by Fitch's proof. It provides a complete picture of the paradoxicality that results from Fitch's proof, and presents a solution to the paradox that claims to address both problems raised by the original proof.

Epistemological questions about the significance of disagreement have advanced alongside broader developments in social epistemology concerning testimony, the nature of expertise and epistemic authority, the role of institutions, group belief, and epistemic injustice, among others. During this period, related issues in the epistemology of religion have re-emerged as worthy of new consideration, and available to be situated with new conceptual tools. Does disagreement between, and within, religions challenge the rationality of religious commitment? How should religious adherents think about exclusivist, inclusivist, and pluralist frameworks as applied to religious truth, or to matters of salvation or redemption or liberation? This volume explores many of these issues at the intersection of the epistemology of disagreement and religious epistemology. It engages in careful reflection on religious diversity and disagreement, offering ways to balance epistemic humility with personal conviction. Recognizing the place of religious differences in our social lives, it provides renewed efforts at how best to think about truths concerning religion.

Há uma profunda divisão entre duas concepções fundamentais na epistemologia ao longo dos últimos trinta a quarenta anos. Alguns rotulam essa divisão como sendo aquela entre internalistas e externalistas, e essa caracterização pode, mesmo, ser exata, conforme alguma explicação dessa distinção. Eu abordarei a divisão por um ângulo diferente, dado que uma abordagem melhor é conceber a divisão como surgindo de uma compreensão do Problema de Sellars. O meu interesse é em posturas que recusam uma pressuposição crucial na formulação do Problema de Sellars. Recusar essa pressuposição, como veremos, é uma das respostas mais comuns ao problema. Argumentarei, no entanto, que tal recusa é simplesmente insustentável, tanto na teoria da justificação quanto na teoria do conhecimento. PALAVRAS-CHAVE – Plantinga. Problema de Sellars. Internalismo. Externalismo. Knowledge. Justification. ABSTRACT There is a great divide between two approaches to epistemology over the past thirty to forty years. Some label the divide that between internalists and externalists, and that characterization may be accurate on some account of the distinction. I will pursue the divide from a different direction, since a better approach is to think of the divide as arising from an understanding of Sellars’ Problem. My interest is in positions that deny a crucial presupposition in the formulation of Sellars’ Problem. Denying this presupposition, as we will see, is one of the most common responses to the problem. I will argue, however, that this denial is simply untenable, both in the theory of justification and in the theory of knowledge. KEY WORDS – Plantinga. Sellars’ Problem. Internalism. Externalism. Knowledge. Justification.

Epistemology is more than the theory of knowledge. It involves reflection on and theorizing about cognitive successes from a purely theoretical or intellectual point of view, one that brackets other concerns such as practical, moral, and aesthetic ones. Knowledge is certainly one success of this sort, but not the only one. In addition, there are the great achievements of understanding and wisdom, as well as the ordinary accomplishments of having rational opinions and justified beliefs. Multiplicity, however, can lead to fragmented theorizing. Fragmentation can arise by ignoring much of the theoretical landscape, as when one limits one’s theorizing in epistemology to the theory of knowledge. Fragmentation can also arise by addressing more (or even all) of the landscape, but not in a unified fashion. For example, one might be a Chisholmian foundationalist about justification while also being a virtue epistemologist about knowledge. Fragmentation is disappointing. Just as it is disappointing to be told that the laws of terrestrial motion have little in common with the laws of celestial motion, so too is disunity in epistemology something to lament. It is worthwhile, then, to compare some possible ways of avoiding such fragmentation, to see whether there is any hope for greater unification regarding the variety of items in our epistemological landscape. My goal will be to argue in a very tentative way for the superior prospects for unity found by taking the theory of confirmation as fundamental to epistemological theorizing, at least when compared to the extant rivals of a knowledge-first approach and a reasons-based account.

McCain’s evidentialism embraces Statism—the view that identifies evidence with mental states—over its denial, where the denial is identified as Propositionalism the two positions in question offer quite different prospects for addressing Sellars’ Problem about the intelligibility of believing on the basis of experience. In Sellars’ mind, this problem provides fodder for a regress argument against experientially-based foundationalism, but that’s not only a bad argument, it skirts the fundamental worry. The more fundamental worry is about adopting a kind of “black box” epistemology on which the only connection between experience and belief is a functional one, the internal workings of which are opaque and mysterious. Propositionalism, by design, is formulated to avoid such limitations. It is designed so that the link from experience to belief makes sense from the perspective of the person whose belief is in question. I argue that Statism, at best, contorts to try to do so.

The standard view concerning types of theories of justification is that there are two types of theories: foundational and coherence theories. Foundationalism is generally taken to be what I call Minimal Foundationalism, which is a weaker form of foundationalism than Classical Foundationalism. I argue that this taxonomical scheme is inadequate since it fails to separate theories that are intuitively different, and it places some theories that are avowedly of one sort in the other type of theory. ;A different classification scheme depending on a distinction between subjectivity and objectivity is then offered. That distinction concerns whether what a person thinks, or is able to think on simple reflection, concerning his having met certain conditions for justification affects his justification. The two possible effects are that the satisfaction of a condition for justification entails that a person is able to think that this condition is satisfied, and that a person's ability to think that a condition is satisfied entails that that condition is satisfied. Thus, the most subjective theory possible is when a mutual entailment relation holds between these conditions and a person's possible thoughts about these conditions. I then show how this classification scheme is able to properly characterize many actual theories of justification, and how it can enlighten one as to the nature of different sorts of theories. ;The major task undertaken is to show that a completely subjective theory of justification is adequate to that sort of justification relevant to knowledge. A completely subjective theory of justification claims that it is logically necessary and sufficient for a belief to be justified that, roughly, the person is able to think on simple reflection that the belief is justified. It is defended that when this sort of justification is undefeated and occurs with true belief, knowledge is the result. Thus, contrary to the major views concerning knowledge in the history of philosophy, quite an extensive degree of subjectivity in justification is compatible with out intuitions concerning knowledge

The heart of the epistemological interest of Zagzebski’s book is found in the tasks of clarifying the natures of justification and knowledge in terms of the intellectual virtues. It is in virtue of undertaking this task that Zagzebski presents a version of virtue epistemology. Though the book has several interesting features apart from this task, I want to argue that in its fundamental tasks, the book is a failure. In particular, I will argue that Zagzebski’s virtue account of justification is irreparably inadequate

This chapter explores the different grounds for accepting the claim that all truths are knowable, the assumption central to the derivation of Fitch’s result. It argues that although there is no compelling argument for holding that all truths are knowable, there are various positions in which this feature of semantic anti-realism fits naturally; rejecting this puts serious tension into a broad range of philosophical outlooks, including theism and physicalism. In the end, the paradox should be felt by everyone, even those who do not accept the knowability claim, because the heart of the paradox is not simply in what is implied by the knowability claim, but in a lost logical distinction between what is actual and what is possible.

This chapter examines the logical structure of the knowability paradox, presenting the details of the proofs that underlie the paradox, and clarifying which elements of these proofs give rise to paradox. It argues that there is no simple and obvious logical mistake in the derivation of the knowability result. A paradox has deep significance only if it arises from plausible premises. Those in question in Fitch’s proof are the claim of epistemic modesty, that some truths will never be known, and the knowability principle that all truths are knowable. Although the second claim does not have the same intuitive pull as the first, there are substantive grounds in its favour; grounds that some hold show that all truths are knowable, but which show at the very least that it is plausible to maintain that all truths are knowable.