Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Third-person internalism: A critical examination of externalism and a foundation-oriented alternative. [REVIEW]Gerhard Schurz - 2008 - Acta Analytica 23 (1):9-28.
    This paper starts with an examination of the major problems of foundation-oriented epistemology in Sect. 2. Then, in Sects. 3–4, it is argued that the externalistic re-definition of knowledge deprives this concept from useful applications to human’s epistemic practice. From the viewpoint of cultural evolution, the condition of justification is the most important ingredient of knowledge. An alternative foundation-oriented conception of knowledge called third-person internalism is developed in Sect. 2 and Sect. 5. It combines insights of externalism with the requirement (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  • Rortyian Hope.Mark Sanders - 2009 - Human Affairs 19 (1).
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Two arguments against foundationalism.Jane Duran - 2002 - Philosophia 29 (1-4):241-252.
    Bringing to bear two major lines of argument, I claim that foundationalism is vitiated by its reliance (in its various forms) on privileged access, and by its noninstantiability. The notion of privileged access is examined, and the status of propositions said to be evocative of privileged access addressed. Noninstantiability is viewed through the current project of naturalizing epistemology, and naturalized alternatives to the rigorous foundationalism of the normative epistemologists are brought forward.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Foundational Frames: Descartes and Rand.Stephen Boydstun - 2019 - Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 19 (1):1-37.
    This article closely compares the opposing foundations of theoretical philosophy in René Descartes and Ayn Rand. The developmental course of Rand's foundations, with their continual opposition to Descartes, is tracked. Arguments particularly against Descartes are assembled in this article, and the bountiful contemporary scholarship on Descartes is engaged.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
    		•
  • Probability without certainty: foundationalism and the Lewis–Reichenbach debate.David Atkinson & Jeanne Peijnenburg - 2006 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 37 (3):442-453.
    Like many discussions on the pros and cons of epistemic foundationalism, the debate between C. I. Lewis and H. Reichenbach dealt with three concerns: the existence of basic beliefs, their nature, and the way in which beliefs are related. In this paper we concentrate on the third matter, especially on Lewis’s assertion that a probability relation must depend on something that is certain, and Reichenbach’s claim that certainty is never needed. We note that Lewis’s assertion is prima facie ambiguous, but (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   9 citations