Understanding the Revisability Thesis

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. The author shows that the thesis is in fact ambiguous between three substantially different theses. She illustrates the importance of clarifying it by assessing its use in the debate against the existence of a priori knowledge. She shows how the three different readings of the thesis can be used to generate three substantially different and philosophically significant arguments against the a priori. The author further challenges each one of these arguments against the a priori.

Download Full-text

Analyticity and the A Priori

Canadian Journal of Philosophy Supplementary Volume ◽

10.1080/00455091.1992.10717300 ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 18 ◽

pp. 113-150

Author(s):

Albert Casullo

Keyword(s):

Twentieth Century ◽

A Priori ◽

Logical Empiricism ◽

The Other ◽

A Priori Knowledge ◽

Other Hand ◽

Priori Knowledge

The analytic/synthetic distinction has played a central role in discussions of a priori knowledge throughout the twentieth century. One of the primary reasons for the prominence of this distinction is the widespread influence of the tradition of logical empiricism which endorsed the following principles:(LEl) All analytic propositions are knowable a prioriand(LE2) All propositions knowable a priori are analytic.Hence, proponents of the a priori often argue in support of the contention that the propositions of a particular discipline, say mathematics or logic, are knowable a priori by arguing that it consists solely of analytic propositions. On the other hand, detractors of the a priori often reject such knowledge on the grounds that the analytic/synthetic distinction is not cogent. My primary goal in this paper is to challenge the prevalent acceptance of (LE1).

Download Full-text

Seeing, Knowing, and Doing

10.1093/oso/9780197503508.001.0001 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Robert Audi

Keyword(s):

Practical Reasoning ◽

Practical Knowledge ◽

A Priori ◽

Human Action ◽

A Priori Knowledge ◽

Rational Action ◽

Reasons For Action ◽

Discriminative Response ◽

Rich Information ◽

Priori Knowledge

This book provides an overall theory of perception and an account of knowledge and justification concerning the physical, the abstract, and the normative. It has the rigor appropriate for professionals but explains its main points using concrete examples. It accounts for two important aspects of perception on which philosophers have said too little: its relevance to a priori knowledge—traditionally conceived as independent of perception—and its role in human action. Overall, the book provides a full-scale account of perception, presents a theory of the a priori, and explains how perception guides action. It also clarifies the relation between action and practical reasoning; the notion of rational action; and the relation between propositional and practical knowledge. Part One develops a theory of perception as experiential, representational, and causally connected with its objects: as a discriminative response to those objects, embodying phenomenally distinctive elements; and as yielding rich information that underlies human knowledge. Part Two presents a theory of self-evidence and the a priori. The theory is perceptualist in explicating the apprehension of a priori truths by articulating its parallels to perception. The theory unifies empirical and a priori knowledge by clarifying their reliable connections with their objects—connections many have thought impossible for a priori knowledge as about the abstract. Part Three explores how perception guides action; the relation between knowing how and knowing that; the nature of reasons for action; the role of inference in determining action; and the overall conditions for rational action.

Download Full-text

How Reality is Reasonable

10.1093/oso/9780198810384.003.0006 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Donald C. Williams

Keyword(s):

A Priori ◽

A Priori Knowledge ◽

Dimensional Manifold ◽

The World ◽

Being There ◽

Ways Of Being ◽

Fundamental Entity ◽

Spatiotemporal Relations ◽

Priori Knowledge

This chapter begins with a systematic presentation of the doctrine of actualism. According to actualism, all that exists is actual, determinate, and of one way of being. There are no possible objects, nor is there any indeterminacy in the world. In addition, there are no ways of being. It is proposed that actual entities stand in three fundamental relations: mereological, spatiotemporal, and resemblance relations. These relations govern the fundamental entities. Each fundamental entity stands in parthood relations, spatiotemporal relations, and resemblance relations to other entities. The resulting picture is one that represents the world as a four-dimensional manifold of actual ‘qualitied contents’—upon which all else supervenes. It is then explained how actualism accounts for classes, quantity, number, causation, laws, a priori knowledge, necessity, and induction.

Download Full-text

How Do We Know that We’re Not Brains in Vats?

10.1093/oso/9780199564477.003.0007 ◽

2018 ◽

Author(s):

Keith DeRose

Keyword(s):

Epistemic Justification ◽

A Priori ◽

A Priori Knowledge ◽

Conservative Approach ◽

Contingent Fact ◽

Brains In Vats ◽

Priori Knowledge

In this chapter the contextualist Moorean account of how we know by ordinary standards that we are not brains in vats (BIVs) utilized in Chapter 1 is developed and defended, and the picture of knowledge and justification that emerges is explained. The account (a) is based on a double-safety picture of knowledge; (b) has it that our knowledge that we’re not BIVs is in an important way a priori; and (c) is knowledge that is easily obtained, without any need for fancy philosophical arguments to the effect that we’re not BIVs; and the account is one that (d) utilizes a conservative approach to epistemic justification. Special attention is devoted to defending the claim that we have a priori knowledge of the deeply contingent fact that we’re not BIVs, and to distinguishing this a prioritist account of this knowledge from the kind of “dogmatist” account prominently championed by James Pryor.

Download Full-text