Abstract

Some of Roderick Chisholm's more recent work has displayed a conception of warrant, which differs substantially from his earlier conception of warrant. In this chapter, I explain postclassical Chisholmian internalism and then offer four critical observations about it. First, it is relatively uninformative ; second, it remains internalist, but loses the principal philosophical motivation for internalism by moving away from deontology. Third, it is not the case that for a given belief B, there is a set S of evidence bases such that, necessarily, B has warrant for me if and only if it occurs in conjunction with a member of that set S. And, fourth, it is a mistake to suppose that the warrant a belief enjoys for S can be understood as a function solely of the psychological properties S exemplifies.