Externalism for Internalists

Practical Thought Pub Date : 2021-07-29 DOI:10.2307/1522857
J. Dancy
{"title":"Externalism for Internalists","authors":"J. Dancy","doi":"10.2307/1522857","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper discusses the relation between meta-ethics and meta-epistemology and attempts to move forward on both fronts at once. Internalism claims that only facts believed by the agent are relevant to justification. An extreme externalism allows that facts of which the agent has no inkling can be relevant to justification. An extreme internalism maintains that only matters internal to the believer’s perspective are relevant to questions of justification. Less extreme forms of these views are introduced, e.g. Alston’s internalistic externalism. Eventually progress is supposed possible only if we distinguish between reasons/justifiers and enablers, and between motivating reasons and states which enable those considerations to motivate. These distinctions enable our meta-ethics and our meta-epistemology to come together","PeriodicalId":101978,"journal":{"name":"Practical Thought","volume":"27 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Thought","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/1522857","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper discusses the relation between meta-ethics and meta-epistemology and attempts to move forward on both fronts at once. Internalism claims that only facts believed by the agent are relevant to justification. An extreme externalism allows that facts of which the agent has no inkling can be relevant to justification. An extreme internalism maintains that only matters internal to the believer’s perspective are relevant to questions of justification. Less extreme forms of these views are introduced, e.g. Alston’s internalistic externalism. Eventually progress is supposed possible only if we distinguish between reasons/justifiers and enablers, and between motivating reasons and states which enable those considerations to motivate. These distinctions enable our meta-ethics and our meta-epistemology to come together
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对内主义者的外在主义
本文讨论了元伦理学与元认识论的关系,并试图同时在这两个方面向前推进。内在主义主张只有行为人相信的事实才与正当性有关。极端外在主义允许行为人没有暗示的事实可能与辩护有关。一种极端的内在主义认为,只有信徒的内在观点与称义有关。这些观点的不太极端的形式被介绍,例如奥尔斯顿的内部外部主义。最终,只有当我们区分理由/论证者和推动者,区分激励理由和使这些考虑得以激励的状态时,才有可能取得进步。这些区别使我们的元伦理学和元认识论走到了一起
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Logical Conscience McDowell, Williams, and Intuitionism The Particularist’s Progress Practical Concepts In Defence of Thick Concepts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1