Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:40:30.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Virtue Epistemology, Two Kinds of Internalism, and the Intelligibility Problem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 July 2020

By
Jonathan L. Kvanvig
Edited by
Christoph Kelp  and
John Greco
Christoph Kelp
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
John Greco
Affiliation:
Georgetown University, Washington DC
Get access

Summary

This chapter compares virtue epistemology to two types of Internalisms, Statism and Propositionalism in light of the intelligibility problem first raised by Sellars. It explains the problem and argues that both virtue epistemology and Statism are subject to this problem. Even thoughPrropositionalism is designed to address the problem, the problem is much more difficult to solve than is recognized. I show why, and what a solution to the problem might look like.

Keywords

InternalismExternalismvirtue epistemologyPropositionalismStatismsafetysensitivitytruth-trackingintelligibility problem
Type
Chapter
Information
Virtue Theoretic Epistemology
New Methods and Approaches
 , pp. 147 - 165
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Archer, Avery. 2015. “Reconceiving Direction of Fit,” Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 4(3): 171–180.Google Scholar
Block, Ned. 1998. “Conceptual Role Semantics,” in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Craig (ed.), Edward. Boston, MA: Routledge, 242–256.Google Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick. 1957. Perceiving. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick. 1977. Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 2nd edn.Google Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick. 1991a. “Firth and the Ethics of Belief,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 51(1): 119–128.Google Scholar
Chisholm, Roderick. 1991b. Theory of Knowledge. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 3rd edn.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry A. and LePore, Ernest. 1992. Holism: A Shopper’s Guide. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Frost, Kim. 2014. “On the Very Idea of Direction of Fit,” Philosophical Review 123(4): 429–484.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin. 1979. “What is Justified Belief?” In Justification and Knowledge, Pappas (ed.), George. Boston, MA: D. Reidel, 1–25.Google Scholar
Greco, John. 2000. Putting Skeptics in Their Place. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gregory, Alex. 2012. “Changing Direction on Direction of Fit,” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15(5): 603–614.Google Scholar
Humberstone, I. L. 1992. “Direction of Fit,” Mind 101(401): 59–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. 2014. Rationality and Reflection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kvanvig, Jonathan L. 2018. “McCain on Propositionalism,” in Believing in Accordance with the Evidence: New Essays on Evidentialism, McCain (ed.), Kevin. New York: Springer Publications.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1981. Philosophical Explanations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. 1993. Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, John. 1974. Knowledge and Justification. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Pollock, John. 1986. Contemporary Theories of Knowledge. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
Pritchard, Duncan H. 2005. Epistemic Luck. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roush, Sherrilyn. 2005. Tracking Truth: Knowledge, Evidence, and Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. 1989. Frege’s Puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sobel, D. and Copp, D.. 2001. “Against Direction of Fit Accounts of Belief and Desire,” Analysis 61(1): 44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tenenbaum, Sergio. 2006. “Direction of Fit and Motivational Cognitivism,” in Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Shafer–Landau, Russ (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, 235–264.Google Scholar
Whiting, Daniel. 2006. “Conceptual Role Semantics,” in Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. www.iep.utm.edu/conc-rol/. Accessed January 28, 2020.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×