Célia Teixeira

O objectivo deste artigo consiste em introduzir a noção de conhecimento a priori e os problemas que a envolvem. Começa-se por caracterizar o conhecimento a priori e aquilo que o distingue do conhecimento a posteriori para de seguida avaliar-se as dificuldades que uma compreensão adequada da noção de independência da experiência enfrenta. A noção de a priori é distinguida da de necessidade, à qual, tradicionalmente, tem sido associada. Por fim, o problema do a priori é formulado e as principais teorias que a ele respondem brevemente discutidas.

A noção de analiticidade teve um papel central em vários debates filosóficos, em particular durante a primeira metade do século XX. Na sequência do influente artigo de W. V. Quine “Dois Dogmas do empirismo” (1951), a noção passou a ser vista com grande cepticismo. Mais recentemente, Paul Boghossian, no artigo “Analiticidade Reconsiderada” (1996), propôs uma forma de compreender a noção que é, putativamente, imune às críticas de Quine. O interesse na noção de analiticidade ficou desta forma renovado, assim como a sua centralidade no debate acerca da possibilidade do conhecimento a priori. O principal objectivo deste artigo consiste em introduzir a noção de analiticidade e os principais problemas que esta enfrenta.

It is nowadays standard to distinguish between epistemic and metaphysical analyticity. Metaphysical analyticity has been widely rejected, while epistemic analyticity has been widely endorsed. I argue that we also have good reason to reject epistemic analyticity. I do so by considering all the plausible ways of characterizing epistemic analyticity and of drawing the epistemic analytic–synthetic distinction. I argue that on all of them, the distinction fails to carve at the semantic joints. I conclude that there is good reason to think that there is no semantic distinction to be drawn between analytic and synthetic sentences.

There has been some degree of scepticism regarding the intelligibility of the notion of truth in virtue of meaning – which has come to be known as metaphysical notion of analyticity – ever since W. V. Quine’s famous attack. Such scepticism has been forcefully reinforced by Paul Boghossian, and more recently by Timothy Williamson. My main aim is to defend this sceptical stance. I argue that, understood literally, we are right to repudiate this notion of analyticity. But understood less literally, we might find it less objectionable. Drawing from two-dimensional approaches to semantics, I offer what could be a new way of understanding the metaphysical notion of analyticity, one that does not suffer from the problems associated with the old notion of metaphysical analyticity. I argue that despite its intelligibility, this new notion does not seem to capture a semantic phenomenon deserving of the name ‘analytic’ or if it does it fails to capture the kind of semantic phenomenon necessary for the empiricist account of the a priori.

W. V. Quine famously claimed that no statement is immune to revision. This thesis has had a profound impact on twentieth century philosophy, and it still occupies centre stage in many contemporary debates. However, despite its importance it is not clear how it should be interpreted. I show that the thesis is in fact ambiguous between three substantially different theses. I illustrate the importance of clarifying it by assessing its use in the debate against the existence of a priori knowledge. I show how the three different readings of the thesis can be used to generate three substantially different and philosophically significant arguments against the a priori. I further challenge each one of these arguments against the a priori.

According to the most popular account of the a priori, which we might call Analytic Account of the A Priori, we can explain the a priori in terms of the notion of analyticity. According to the least popular account of the a priori, the explanation of the a priori proceeds by appealing to the faculties used in the acquisition of a priori knowledge, such as the faculty of rational intuition – call this Rationalist Account of the A Priori. The main aim of this paper is to challenge the analytic account of the a priori to motivate a return to rationalism. To achieve this aim, I discuss and challenge two very different analytic accounts of the a priori: a concept-based account that relies on meaning-justification links, and an understanding-based account that does not rely on such links. I argue that the former is both extensionally inadequate and explanatorily deficient, and the latter can be made to work but only by employing such a rich notion of understanding that renders it a form of rationalism in disguise. I conclude by motivating a rationalist faculty-based account of the a priori.

Intuition-based accounts of the a priori are criticised for appealing to a “mysterious” faculty of rational intuition to explain how a priori knowledge is possible. Analyticity-based accounts are typically motivated by opposition to them, offering a purportedly “non-mysterious” account of the a priori. In this paper, I argue that analyticity-based accounts are in no better position to explain the a priori than intuition-based accounts, and that we have good reason to doubt the explanation they offer. To do this, I focus on recent analyticity-based accounts of the a priori, which appeal to understanding alone to explain the a priori. First, I argue that the appeal to understanding as the source of the a priori is no less mysterious than the appeal to rational intuition. Second, I argue that analyticity-based accounts of the a priori do not provide an alternative to intuition-based accounts as the fundamental explanation they offer of the a priori is one that could equally be endorsed by a friend of rational intuition—and that they fail for reasons that do not undermine intuition-based accounts.

Segundo um influente argumento contra a existência de conhecimento a priori, não há conhecimento a priori porque (i) nenhuma crença é imune à revisão, e (ii) se houvesse conhecimento a priori, algumas crenças seriam irrevisíveis. Uma versão deste argumento foi celebremente defendida por W. V. Quine e ainda é popular entre filósofos naturalistas. O objectivo deste artigo é examinar e rejeitar este argumento contra o a priori. O artigo começa por discutir a tese (i) e o seu papel no modelo da Teia de Crenças de Quine. Defende-se que (i) enfrenta importantes desafios que colocam em risco o seu uso no argumento supra. A premissa (ii) do argumento é então discutida. Philip Kitcher é conhecido pela sua defesa de uma versão da premissa (ii). Os seus argumentos são analisados e rejeitados. A conclusão é que não temos uma boa razão para aceitar (ii), e consequentemente este argumento contra o a priori. O artigo termina com a proposta de uma caracterização do a priori perfeitamente compatível com (i).

We are pleased to announce that the University of Lisbon has signed an agreement with De Gruyter publishers for the open access publication of Disputatio. With De Gruyter Online academic publishing, all articles will be freely available online and assigned a DOI. Disputatio is now starting a new cycle, and during the summer of 2017 its editorship will be transferred from Teresa Marques and Célia Teixeira to Ricardo Santos (U Lisboa) and Elia Zardini (U Lisboa). We wish to thank the managing editor, José Mestre, for his exceptional and meticulous work, and friendship during these years. We also wish to thank all the members of the editorial board, and the many reviewers who have collaborated with Disputatio during the last decade (reviewers are named below; apologies if we forgot anyone). We also thank you, our readers, for continued interest in our project. We wish the future editors of the journal the best of luck and success.