Martin Nuhlíček

The paper deals with epistemic intuitions as a specific epistemological phenomenon. It points out some difficulties of examining this matter and suggests a new methodological perspective which seems promising with respect to removing such difficulties. The first part of the paper concerns with identification and characteristics of EI. They occur primarily within the so-called method of cases in which the judgements based on EI constitute demonstrations of “normal” understanding of knowledge. In the second part of the paper the attention is paid to the justificatory function of EI which leads to the main epistemological question concerning EI, namely: What makes EI possess a strong justificatory status? The goal of the third part is to show that current conceptions of EI do not provide satisfactory responses to the justificatory question. In the fourth part of the paper the pivotal methodological turn is introduced and defended. The turn consists in a shift from substantial to adjectival perspective on the issue: instead of “intuitions” it gives preference to “intuitive” beliefs or judgements. This change in subject matter allows setting aside many difficulties related to the substantial form of EI. It also makes the matter a part of ordinary “mainstream” epistemology, which results in a welcomed elucidation of the topic.

Názor, že poznanie je hodnotné, tvorí kľúčový predpoklad epistemológie. Vo svojej klasickej podobe je vyjadrený komparatívnou tézou, že poznanie je hodnotnejšie než pravdivá mienka. Rôzne teoretické pokusy o vysvetlenie hodnoty poznania však doteraz neboli definitívne úspešné. Môže za to najmä tzv. problém pohltenia, v dôsledku ktorého akýkoľvek konštituent poznania nad rámec pravdivej mienky nemôže byť zdrojom hodnoty poznania. Časť autorov preto obracia pozornosť k fenoménu porozumenia, ktoré označujú za primárnu epistemickú hodnotu, pričom skúmanie hodnoty poznania odsúvajú do úzadia. V tejto situácii spočíva možné riešenie problému hodnoty poznania v odmietnutí predpokladu, že vysvetlenie hodnoty poznania musí byť univerzálne. Tým sa otvára priestor pre pluralistické koncepcie, ktoré rozličným poznatkom pripisujú odlišné druhy hodnôt.

The paper introduces and discusses two different types of criticisms of epistemic externalism. First, there are criticisms of externalism which I call sceptical criticisms. So-called sceptical critics state that the externalist conception of justification leads to the consequence that no belief is justified and hence no belief constitutes knowledge. I defend the claim that sceptical criticisms of epistemic externalism are generally wrong, because the conclusion which they infer from available premises is too strong. However, I suggest that epistemic externalism can be effectively criticized to be implausible, but for different reasons. I introduce a second type of criticisms which I call practical criticisms of epistemic externalism. So-called practical critics argue that from the externalist point of view it is impossible to identify the epistemic status of beliefs. This means, in turn, that even if the externalist conception of justification was true, it would be practically useless, and therefore implausible

Názor, že poznanie je hodnotné, tvorí kľúčový predpoklad epistemológie. Vo svojej klasickej podobe je vyjadrený komparatívnou tézou, že poznanie je hodnotnejšie než pravdivá mienka. Rôzne teoretické pokusy o vysvetlenie hodnoty poznania však doteraz neboli definitívne úspešné. Môže za to najmä tzv. problém pohltenia, v dôsledku ktorého akýkoľvek konštituent poznania nad rámec pravdivej mienky nemôže byť zdrojom hodnoty poznania. Časť autorov preto obracia pozornosť k fenoménu porozumenia, ktoré označujú za primárnu epistemickú hodnotu, pričom skúmanie hodnoty poznania odsúvajú do úzadia. V tejto situácii spočíva možné riešenie problému hodnoty poznania v odmietnutí predpokladu, že vysvetlenie hodnoty poznania musí byť univerzálne. Tým sa otvára priestor pre pluralistické koncepcie, ktoré rozličným poznatkom pripisujú odlišné druhy hodnôt.

The aim of this paper is to explore the issue of priority of common sense in philosophy. It is divided into four parts. The first part discusses examples of common-sense beliefs and indicates their specific nature, especially compared to mere common beliefs. The second part explores in more detail the supposed positive epistemic status of common-sense beliefs and the role they play in delimiting plausible philosophical theories. The third part overviews a few attempts to formulate a legitimate argument, or justification, in favor of the positive epistemic status of common-sense beliefs, none of which, however, appears to be clearly successful. Finally, the fourth part addresses the central issue of priority of common sense. Two different types of priority are introduced, epistemic and methodological, and it is argued that only the latter applies to common-sense beliefs. If so, then common-sense beliefs are not to be conceived as cases of knowledge but as the clearest cases of what we believe is knowledge.

G. E. Moore replies to skepticism by using propositions which from the common sense perspective are trivially true. However, it seems that his replies are not effective, because the skeptic’s doubts concern precisely the common sense truths. This problem became the subject of various interpretations. N. Malcolm and B. Stroud suggest that Moore is not trying to refute skepticism directly . Therefore, they look for an alternative interpretation of Moore’s replies. They find the ground of their effectiveness in his pointing to the use of words, as well as in the illegitimacy of the skeptic’s position. The author offers an interpretation in the terms of reliabilism, which avoids the defects of the previous ones and does not require an alternative understanding of Moore’s propositions: Moore insists on the reliability of perception what enables him to yield effective replies to skepticism in agreement with common sense