Search

The world of sports today is grappling with dehumanizing tendencies. New technologies are changing sport as we know it, altering the experience of being an athlete in radical ways. These tendencies call for new approaches to sport that consider the human elements of sport. To this end, and as a response to transhumanist and posthumanist arguments, I propose and draw the contours of a humanist theory of sport. I argue that it complements prevailing theories of sport like formalism, broad internalism (or interpretivism), and conventionalism and is better equipped to tackle the pressing concerns of dehumanization in sports. It is rooted in a humanism of embodiment and underscores our corporeal embeddedness in a natural and social world. Taking this into the context of sport, I argue that sport humanism can inform an understanding of sport as a human engagement that involves embodiment, ambiguity, and repetition. On this basis, I outline an ethics of embodiment that can throw new light on moral questions and actions concerning dignity, freedom, and ecology to direct sport toward more sustainable and humane forms of practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author explores the New Evil Demon Problem that was formed as an objection to reliabilist theories of epistemic justification. He describes the standard version of the New Evil Demon scenario and internalists' conclusions about the justification of perceptual experiences. He discusses philosophers Alvin Goldman, Edwin Sosa and Tyler Burge's respective versions of the special-circumstances response and the development of a reliabilist account of warranted beliefs in demon world scenarios.

Bill Morgan has written a terrific book, the culmination of his career long engagement in the philosophy of sport and a work which is immediately a required read - one might say a required grapple - in our sub discipline. Morgan has Switzer as a moral dissident, who does not so much I argue for i , as I exemplify i a new way of thinking about sport: 'a wholesale moral paradigm shift in how we think about and practice sport in which women are accorded a central role and place' (197). The answer is, Bill Morgan himself: the chapter is a settling of accounts with his former view, expressed most fully in Morgan (Morgan [2], [3]). Because, I mutatis mutandis i , Thomas does I precisely i what Morgan has Switzer doing: Thomas wanted to 'make a moral statement that the present conventional norms of sport need change to open up a new conceptual and normative space' (197). [Extracted from the article]

It is commonly assumed that content preservation is required for success in testimonial exchanges. Many content internalists, however, cannot endorse this assumption. They must claim instead that testimonial exchanges can often succeed when the content grasped by the hearer is not the content of the speaker's testimony, p, but some merely similar content, p*. Goldberg (2007. Anti-Individualism: Mind and Language, Knowledge and Justification. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) argues that this internalist approach is epistemically problematic: it cannot maintain certain features thought to be characteristic of testimonial exchanges. I argue that, contrary to appearances, the internalist's account is just as epistemically respectable as the traditional 'same content' approach favoured by externalists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1967, Alvin Goldman prominently claimed that the traditional JTB analysis is adequate for non‐empirical knowledge. Since then, this claim has remained widely unchallenged. In this paper, I show that this claim is false. I provide two examples in which a true belief is a priori justified but epistemically defective such that it does not constitute knowledge. Finally, I submit a novel analysis of a priori knowledge that avoids the Gettier problem. What is particularly important and distinctive about my analysis is that I neither need to make the justification condition so strong that only infallible justification is allowed, nor do I need to explicitly introduce a truth condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The book review discusses the edited volume "Interpreting Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit" by Ivan Boldyrev and Sebastian Stein. The book focuses on different interpretative approaches to Hegel's Phenomenology, including those from German and French phenomenology, Marxism, neo-pragmatism, and psychoanalysis. The chapters evaluate these interpretations based on three primary questions: the nature of the text, the conceptual contributions of existing interpretative strategies, and the viability of the Phenomenology as a project. The review provides a brief overview of selected chapters, highlighting their main arguments and contributions. Overall, the review recommends the book as a valuable resource for understanding the diverse interpretations of Hegel's Phenomenology. [Extracted from the article]

I argue that it's quite comprehensible to get upset about metaethical nihilism, to indulge what I call nihilistic despair. When we lose the objective moral or normative point of view, we lose the promise of luck-immune guidance and categorical importance, things many of us hope for. This is all quite Williams-friendly, but I reject his puzzling but suggestive remarks that nihilistic despair must be a self-pitying muddle. Finally, I argue that internalism about reasons is even more depressing than outright nihilism, in one way at least. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the existence of polysemy (e.g., lunch can refer to both food and events), it is argued that central tenets of externalist semantics and Fodorian concept atomism, an externalist theory on which words lack semantic structure, are unsound. We evaluate the premise that these arguments rely on—that polysemous words have separate, finer‐grained senses. We survey the evidence across psychology and linguistics and argue that it shows that polysemy does not exist, at least not in this "sense". The upshot is that if polysemy does not exist, it cannot pose a problem for atomism or externalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article explores the concept of externalism in psychiatry and its implications for the understanding of mental disorders. The author argues that the idea of mental disorders as solely brain disorders is challenged by the externalist objection, which suggests that societal norms and environmental conditions must also be considered. The article discusses the main features of this perspective and reviews externalist objections. It also mentions the "4E" cognition approach, which emphasizes the complex interaction between the brain, body, and environment in understanding the mind. Overall, the article suggests that a comprehensive understanding of mental disorders requires considering external factors beyond the brain. [Extracted from the article]

This paper focuses on Kojève's account of history and philosophy of science. Kojève's understanding of science can be characterized as internalism, which is evident in his holistic view of philosophy, theology, quantum physics, and the history of classical Newtonian mechanics. It precipitates the facilitation of a further inquiry into the Christian genesis, secular evolution, and subsequent de-Christianization of scientific thought. The paper includes a critical scrutiny of Kojève's philosophical tenets, followed by a comparative analysis of the views of Hegel, Koyré, and Kojève. The primary objective of this research is to juxtapose Kojève's doctrines with Hegel's contemplations on the history and philosophy of science. In addition to identifying affinities, notably the emphasis on the Christian concept of God's Incarnation for the advancement of science, I draw the distinctions between the positions of Hegel, Kojève, and Koyré, specifically concerning the valuation of mathematical knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

'Excellence' underpins debates within sports ethics from the nature of sport to the permissibility of doping. Despite the central role that excellence occupies in ethical reasoning about sport, it has garnered more support than scrutiny in the literature. Little has been said about how this value can be advanced or undermined. This paper addresses that lacuna by demonstrating that excellence has a complexity that has previously gone unnoticed. Specifically, excellence has four distinct elements: the 'cluster of excellence', the 'quantum of excellence', the 'clarity of excellence', and the 'balance of excellence'. Correspondingly, excellence can be advanced or undermined in any of four ways. This analysis yields the 'Excellence Principle' – a principle that provides a desideratum for any broad internalist (i.e. interpretivist) theory of sport and a normative framework with which to undertake excellence-based reasoning in sports ethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alessandra Taniesini's 'The Mismeasure of the Self' develops an internalist account of epistemic vice. On this view, epistemic vices are grounded in attitudes towards the self: fatalism, self-satisfaction, narcissistic infatuation, and self-abasement. The account is internalist insofar as it claims to ground both the nature and the normativity of vice within the subject's skull. In this paper, I argue against vice internalism: epistemic vices, I show, need a normative hook outside the skull to explain their vicious nature. In other words, the 'mis' in the 'mismeasure' of the self demands externalist unpacking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We argue that there is significant evidence for reconsidering the possibility that moral judgment constitutes a distinctive category of judgment. We begin by reviewing evidence and arguments from neuroscience and philosophy that seem to indicate that a diversity of brain processes result in verdicts that we ordinarily consider "moral judgments". We argue that if these findings are correct, this is plausible reason for doubting that all moral judgments necessarily share common features: if diverse brain processes give rise to what we refer to as "moral judgments", then we have reason to suspect that these judgments may have different features. After advancing this argument, we show that giving up the unity of moral judgment seems to effectively dissolve the internalism/externalism debate concerning motivation within the field of metaethics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A major challenge in the philosophy of mathematics is to explain how mathematical language can pick out unique structures and acquire determinate content. In recent work, Button and Walsh have introduced a view they call 'internalism', according to which mathematical content is explained by internal categoricity results formulated and proven in second-order logic. In this paper, we critically examine the internalist response to the challenge and discuss the philosophical significance of internal categoricity results. Surprisingly, as we argue, while internalism arguably explains how we pick out unique mathematical structures, this does not suffice to account for the determinacy of mathematical discourse. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper focuses on the categoricity of arithmetic and determinacy of arithmetical truth. Several 'internal' categoricity results have been discussed in the recent literature. Against the background of the philosophical position called internalism, we propose and investigate truth-theoretic versions of internal categoricity based on a primitive truth predicate. We argue for the compatibility of a primitive truth predicate with internalism and provide a novel argument for (and proof of) a truth-theoretic version of internal categoricity and internal determinacy with some positive properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Suppose that Paul, while looking at a tree, sees that that thing over there is a red bird. Paul is having what we may call a 'singular' perceptual experience. How should we characterise the representational content of his perceptual experience? I will sketch an original answer to this question, building on the internalist accounts propounded by Searle (1983. Intentionality. Cambridge University Press. Ch. 2) and Recanati (2007. Perspectival Thought. Oxford University Press. Ch. 17). Pace Searle, the content of Paul's experience is not a (general) proposition. Pace Recanati, whose account draws on Lewis's (1979. "Attitudes De Dicto and De Se." Philosophical Review 88 (4): 513–543) internalist view of de se attitudes, it is not a property of the perceiving subject. Instead, I submit, it is a property of the perceived object. The content is the property of being a red bird, which determines a set of centred worlds whose centre (an object taken at a time) is a red bird; the object (here, the bird) is part of the relevant situation of evaluation for the experience; and the experience is veridical only if the actual world centred on the object belongs to the set of centred worlds determined by that property. I will argue that this view retains the benefits of Searle's and Recanati's accounts while improving on them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Elizabeth S. Radcliffe's book, "Hume on the Nature of Morality," provides a comprehensive and insightful analysis of David Hume's moral theory. Radcliffe argues for a distinctive interpretation of Hume's moral theory while also surveying alternative readings and placing Hume's arguments in their contemporary context. The book explores Hume's metaethics, his understanding of moral motivation, and his theory of moral judgment. Radcliffe also addresses Hume's distinction between artificial and natural virtues and examines his views on the connection between moral judgment and motivation. Overall, Radcliffe's book offers a nuanced and detailed interpretation of Hume's moral philosophy. [Extracted from the article]

For this reason, Liszka's new book outlining pragmatist ethics is welcome. The realist dimensions (and potentials) of pragmatist ethics, however, are notably absent from the book; nevertheless, Liszka's recent book on Peirce offers some further insight on the topic. [Extracted from the article]

Existing accounts of Kurdish nationalism can be mapped onto the main theories of nationalism, that is, primordialism, ethnosymbolism and modernism. These theories, however, suffer, respectively, from essentialism, circularity and aporia, manifest in their common inability to digest the Janus‐like character of nations, that is, their display of simultaneous modernity and antiquity. This paper develops an alternative account through a critical application of the theory of 'uneven and combined development' (UCD) to the Republic of Kurdistan of 1946. The argument unfolds in three steps. First, we argue that the failure of mainstream theories of nationalism to explain the nation's historical ambiguity lies in their 'internalism'. Second, we show that UCD overcomes internalism through its plural social ontology and enables a retheorising of nations as interactive products of the geopolitical mediation of historical capitalism's expansion through societal multiplicity. Central to this process was the emergence of nationalism as a defensive and emulative ideology of geopolitical self‐preservation. This involved reversing the sociological and political moments of the originary formation of the British imperial nation. We argue that this historical reversal underpins the Janus‐like form of nations, including the Kurdish nation. Third, we substantiate the argument through a brief case study of the Republic of Kurdistan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on Stephen Phillips' translation and commentary on Indian philosopher Gaṅgesa's book "Jewel of Reflection on the Truth about Epistemology," a significant work in Indian epistemology. Topics include the absence of the internalism-externalism debate in classical Indian epistemology; how Gaṅgesa's distinction between perceptual knowledge and certification can offer insights to contemporary epistemology's debates; and relation to the internalism-externalism debate.

Is it ever wrong to cheat in a dream? It has been argued that the conjunction of reasonable claims about dreams with Evaluational Internalism (the view that moral evaluation is determined by factors 'internal' to agency, such as intentions) entails a positive answer. This implausible result seemingly provides reason to favour an alternative theory of moral evaluation. I here argue that a wide range of Evaluational Externalist views (which base moral evaluation on factors 'external' to agency, such as harms produced) are similarly committed to morality in dreams. I end by identifying implications for theorising about dreams and morality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Both sensitivity and safety theorists concur that their accounts should be relativized to the same method that one employs in the actual world. However, properly individuating methods has proven to be a tricky matter. In this regard, Nozick (Philosophical Explanations, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1981) proposes a Same-Experience-Same-Method Principle: if the experiences associated with two method tokens are the same, they are of the same type of method. This principle, however, has been widely rejected by recent safety and sensitivity theorists. In this paper, I raise an argument in favor of Nozick: not endorsing the principle leads to some rather implausible consequences when certain skeptical scenarios are considered—i.e., scenarios in which skeptical possibilities are 'close'. Additionally, this argument reveals some important lessons about skepticism in general and the place of modal accounts of knowledge in the internalism/externalism debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I analyse Agrippa's trilemma, an old skeptical argument that questions the possibility of justifying any arbitrary belief p and its paradox about justification. Assuming that neither infinitism nor skepticism are satisfactory positions, the main alternatives available to face the problem (foundationism, coherentism and epistemic externalism) are outlined, as well as some central arguments that show the serious difficulties they face. In the case of foundationalism, these problems arise from two dilemmas, which work together with the trilemma to make our philosophical life even more difficult: the so-called Sellar's dilemma and Bergmann's dilemma--although the latter is a very general attack on internalism. The former calls into question the intelligibility of a key idea of standard foundationalism: the notion of justified basic belief. The second casts doubt on the rational sustainability of epistemic internalism, which is a usual presupposition of the presentation of the trilemma. I explore a Humean way out of the trilemma that also manages to escape such dilemmas. Like any position in this difficult territory the way out has costs. However, they do not seem unaffordable. Here I only intend to tentatively present the idea, as a possible way out of our difficulties, which deserves to be seriously discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Do Descartes, Locke, and Hume have an internalist or externalist view of epistemic justification? Internalism is, roughly, the view that a belief that p is justified by a mental state, such as the awareness of evidence. By contrast, externalism is, roughly, the view that a belief that p is justified by facts about the belief-forming process, such as the reliability of the belief-forming process. I argue that they all think that the awareness of evidence is required for justification, but none of them think that the awareness of evi-dence alone is sufficient for justification. Similarly, I argue that they all think that reliability of the belief-forming process is required for justification, but none of them think reliability alone is sufficient for justification. So, neither a fully internalist position nor a fully externalist position adequately captures their views of justification; rather, both the supporting evidence and the reliability of the belief-forming process explain why we should hold those beliefs, and hence explain why those beliefs are justified. Thus, they each have a partly internalist, partly externalist view of justification. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Perceptual beliefs that categorize objects can be justified by demonstrating basic properties (eg shapes) of the objects. In these justifications, perceptual justifiers have different contents to the beliefs they justify. I argue that the justifications are not inferential. Subjects are unlikely to have bodies of beliefs adequate to inferentially justify the beliefs they actually form on the strength of their object recognition abilities, especially when recognition depends on stimulus-dependent retrieval of visual memories. Instead, I argue, the justifications exploit a partial awareness that subjects have of states and processes involved in object recognition. As such, they show that subjects have a degree of internal access to the principles of externalistic perceptual warrant, and to the features of perceptual states that give them justificatory force on externalistic accounts. The justifications themselves are evidential, but in order for them to have any justificatory force, they have to be placed in an externalistic framework for perceptual justification. I conclude that this form of justification shows that subjects have a degree of insight into why their perceptual experiences justify their beliefs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Recerca is the property of Universitat Jaume I and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this paper, I first introduce the main motivations for the internalism/externalism dichotomy in epistemology and explore different accounts of epistemic justification, mostly externalist, arising from Dretske's relevant alternatives theory of knowledge, namely the reliabilism of Goldman and Nozick, the contextualism of Cohen and DeRose, which is governed by fallibilist standards, and Lewis' version of contextualism, to which infallibilist standards apply. I then argue that Wittgenstein critically anticipates many of these strategies and tries to avoid such a dichotomy by assuming a form of infallibilism which is neither internal nor external. After introducing the idea of a Wittgensteinian hinge epistemology and how it responds to the problem of epistemic justification and to the particular challenge posed by radical scepticism, I defend the view that infallibility is logically unavoidable when we realize that we are always trapped in one language-game or another, even if we constantly switch between language-games. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The progress towards mathematization or, in a broader context, towards an increased "objectivity" is one of the main trends in the development of biological systematics in the past century. It is commonplace to start the history of numerical taxonomy with the works of R. R. Sokal and P. H. A. Sneath that in the 1960s laid the foundations of this school of taxonomy. In this article, I discuss the earliest research program in this field, developed in the 1920s by the Russian entomologist and biometrician Eugen (Evgeniy Sergeevich) Smirnov. The theoretical and methodological grounds of this program are considered based on the published works of Smirnov as well as some archival sources. The influence of Smirnov's evolutionary (mechano-Lamarckian) convictions on the development of this project of "exact systematics" is analyzed as well as the author's attempts to establish a novel concept of "mathematical essentialism" in animal taxonomy. The probable causes of the failure of Smirnov's project are viewed from both externalist and internalist perspectives, including the opposition to the use of quantitative methods in biology by some of the Lysenkoist ideologists in the USSR. A brief comparison of Smirnov's research program with that developed 40 years later by Sokal and Sneath is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explaining the potential value of intelligence analysis requires substantial engagement with the full range of potential approaches to defining 'value' in ethics/value theory. This paper explores a frequently neglected potential perspective: an 'internalist' approach that defines value in terms of something's internal characteristics (and not its external consequences). Specifically, this essay develops and defends the explanatory power of internalist approaches in terms of their theoretical fit with established knowledge about value theory, their specificity and precision, and their explanatory scope and fruitfulness in generating potential new approaches to thinking about a range of other issues in intelligence studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AUTHOR RECOMMENDS Russell, Bertrand (1912). This book (as well as Chalmers' I The Conscious Mind i ) has been very influential among acquaintance theorists, both because of how Chalmers' understands and develops the notion of acquaintance and because of how he uses it in his arguments and theorizing. ONLINE MATERIALS https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-acquaindescrip/ https://iep.utm.edu/knowacq/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/self-knowledge/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justep-foundational/ SAMPLE SYLLABUS Week I: Introduction to acquaintance Chapter 5 of Russell, Bertrand (1912). This book contains a chapter on the acquaintance theory (Ch. 4) that, together with the other chapters, helpfully situates the acquaintance theory among other theories of self-knowledge. [Extracted from the article]

Considerations of scientific evidence are often thought to provide externalism with the dialectical upper hand in the internalism–externalism debate. How so? A couple of reasons are forthcoming in the literature. (1) Williamson (2000) argues that the E = K thesis (in contrast to internalism) provides the best explanation for the fact that scientists appear to argue from premises about true propositions (or facts) that are common knowledge among the members of the scientific community. (2) Kelly (Philosophy Compass, 3 (5), 933–955, 2008; 2016) argues that only externalism is suited to account for the public character of scientific evidence. In this article, I respond to Williamson and Kelly's arguments. First, I show that the E = K thesis isn't supported by the way in which we talk about scientific evidence, and that it is unable to account for facts about what has been regarded as scientific evidence and as justified scientific belief in the history of science. Second, I argue that there are internalist views that can account for the publicity of scientific evidence, and that those views indeed do better in that regard than the (externalist) view proposed by Kelly. The upshot is that considerations of scientific evidence do not favor externalism over internalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I critically examine some deflationary theories of properties, according to which properties are 'shadows of predicates' and quantification over them serves a mere quasi-logical function. I start by considering Hofweber's internalist theory, and pose a problem for his account of inexpressible properties. I then introduce a theory of properties that closely resembles Horwich's minimalist theory of truth. This theory overcomes the problem of inexpressible properties, but its formulation presupposes the existence of various kinds of abstract objects. I discuss some ways to reduce these existence assumptions, but ultimately suggest that deflationists can hardly avoid quantification over abstract objects of one sort or another. I conclude that property deflationism is perhaps not as deflationary as some philosophers want it to be, but that it's still apt to call the position 'deflationary'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In my response to the commentators, I agree with Rosa Mayorga that Duns Scotus should be included as an important influence on Peirce's notion of agency, as well as his sense of the highest good. I explain, however, how Peirce's triadic view of agency is an improvement that relates to current debates between moral internalism and externalism. In response to Diana Heney, I defend Peirce's notion of evolutionary love as a form of intergenerational altruism, necessary to any community of inquiry. I also argue, in response to her query, that Peirce did not subscribe to moral perfectionism. Instead, there is good reasons to think that he was a meliorist in Dewey's sense. The end is improvement, which seems to be an endless process, rather than the movement towards a static end. I agree with Aaron Wilson's claim that the pragmatic definition of truth implies the convergence theory of truth. However, I explain how the convergence theory of truth might be elaborated as to apply to ethical claims. I also discuss how the 'would be' of the convergence theory of truth is a problematic measure of moral claims. Like progress in science, it is better to measure a moral norm in terms of its improvement from previous ones. I take issue with Wilson's account of moral reality and his claim that truth can be attained by individuals in the absence of community. I end by arguing that reasonableness has to be understood as a process rather than a perfected state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article I discuss Daniel Dennett's view of the role of natural language in the evolution of the human mind. In contrast with defenders of the Language of Thought Hypothesis, Dennett claims that natural language is an evolved tool for communication, originating in behavioural habits of which users were initially not aware. Once in place, such habits changed access to information in human brains and were crucial for the evolution of human consciousness. I assess Dennett's approach from the viewpoint of philosophy of mind and language and consider its ontological implications. I contrast Dennett's views with the universalist and internalist claims of Jerry Fodor and Noam Chomsky and show how, by appealing to memes and cultural evolution, Dennett resists such claims. I then analyse how this picture goes together with a deflationary view of consciousness. I end by pointing out that although Dennett's global picture seems to point towards a pluralistic ontology, he himself refrains from taking such a step. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

[Premise] T2: H can come to know that I p i through S's testimony that I p i only if it is not epistemically lucky that H believes that I p i through S's testimony that I p i . The premise T1 reflects the epistemological assumption that H can acquire testimonial knowledge that I p i through S's testimony that I p i in cases where H has minimal background beliefs about S. However, the argument will not be compromised if we assume that H is epistemically vigilant in the manner suggested by Fricker or by Sperber I et al i . Given a widely accepted general no-luck constraint on knowledge, testimonial knowledge requires that it is not a matter of epistemic luck that H believes that I p i through S's testimony that I p i . This point suggests that in cases that result in testimonial knowledge, the general representational natures of belief and testimony contribute to a principled explanation of why it is not accidental that H believes I p i through S's testimony that I p i . In unfolding the argument, I use the phrase "knowledge I through i testimony" to denote distinctively testimonial knowledge, which contrasts with other ways of acquiring knowledge via someone's testimony. [Extracted from the article]

Evidentialism and mentalism enjoy much popularity. In fact, mentalist evidentialism is often considered the most plausible internalist approach towards epistemic justification. However, mentalist evidentialism does not amount to a comprehensive theory of epistemic justification. In their attempt to complete their epistemological system and to answer the question of why experiences are justifiers, Conee and Feldman supplement mentalist evidentialism with explanationism. They take principles of best explanation to be the fundamental epistemic principles. In this paper, I show that explanationist mentalist evidentialism is plagued by severe shortcomings. What is more, I argue for an alternative in the spirit of Conee and Feldman's internalism that avoids the problems of explanationism, offering a straightforward commonsense account of epistemic justification. The fundamental epistemological principles are phenomenological principles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Games have a complex, and seemingly paradoxical structure: they are both competitive and cooperative, and the competitive element is required for the cooperative element to work out. They are mechanisms for transforming competition into cooperation. Several contemporary philosophers of sport have located the primary mechanism of conversion in the mental attitudes of the players. I argue that these views cannot capture the phenomenological complexity of game-play, nor the difficulty and moral complexity of achieving cooperation through game-play. In this paper, I present a different account of the relationship between competition and cooperation. My view is adistributedview of the conversion: success depends on a large number of features. First, the players must achieve the right motivational state: playing for the sake of the struggle, rather than to win. Second, successful transformation depends on a large number of extra-mental features, including good game design, and social and institutional features. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Mental imagery often occurs during testimonial belief transmission: a testifier often episodically remembers or imagines a scene while describing it, while a listener often imagines that scene as it's described to her. I argue that getting clear on imagery's psychological roles in testimonial belief transmission has implications for some fundamental issues in the epistemology of testimony. I first appeal to imagery cases to argue against a widespread 'internalist' approach to the epistemology of testimony. I then appeal to the same sort of case to argue for an alternative, externalist view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One of the deepest and longest-lasting debates in ethics concerns a version of the Euthyphro question: are choiceworthy things choiceworthy because agents have certain attitudes toward them or are they choiceworthy independent of any agents' attitudes? Reasons internalists, such as Bernard Williams, Michael Smith, Mark Schroeder, Sharon Street, Kate Manne, Julia Markovits, and David Sobel answer in the first way. They think that all of an agent's normative reasons for action are grounded in facts about that agent's pro-attitudes (e.g., her desires, valuing states, normative judgments). According to the most popular brand of internalism, idealizing internalism, an agent's reasons are grounded, not in her actual pro-attitudes, but rather in what her pro-attitudes would be in suitably idealized conditions. Idealizing internalists presuppose that, for any agent with an irrational set of attitudes, there is one uniquely rational set that that agent would have if she were to undergo the relevant idealizing process. I argue that this assumption is false and that it raises two puzzles for idealizing internalism: one about the existence of practical reasons and another about their normative weight. I argue that idealizing internalists have an adequate solution to the first puzzle but not the second. Indeed, when they try to solve the second puzzle, they confront a dilemma. This second puzzle and the associated dilemma thus constitutes a powerful, but so far unnoticed, difficulty for idealizing internalism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article, I develop and defend a version of reliabilism – internal reasons reliabilism – that resolves the paradox of epistemic luck, solves the Gettier problem by ruling out veritic luck, is immune to the generality problem, resolves the internalism/externalism controversy, and preserves epistemic closure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Edmund Husserl devoted considerable effort to the development of a phenomenological theory of rationality, as, for instance, part four of Ideas 1 attests. After providing some necessary background, I will spell out the details of Husserl's account. Yet, as I will also argue, Husserl's official doctrine is untenable due to several ambiguities and internal tensions. Hence, my primary aim in this paper is to offer a modified phenomenological theory of rationality that avoids the problems of Husserl's original account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A recent argument against content internalism bucks tradition: it abandons Twin-Earth-style thought experiments and instead claims that internalism is inconsistent with plausible principles relating belief contents and truth values. Call this (for reasons that will become obvious) the transparency argument. Here, it is shown that there is a structurally parallel argument against content internalism's foil: content externalism. Preserving the transparency argument while fending off the parallel argument against externalism requires that (i) content-determination and truth-value-determination are implausibly linked together and that (ii) eternalism about belief contents is true. Given these requirements, there may be reason to prefer simple, thought-experiment-based arguments against internalism – the sort of arguments that the transparency argument is meant to supersede. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can a reliabilist theory of justified belief be extended to account for justified credence? In exploring this question, this paper first takes as its target Tang's (2016, 2021) reliabilist account of justified credence, which is inspired by William Alston's "indicator reliabilism" (or "internalist externalism") about justified belief. I point out a neglected shortcoming in Tang's account, which concerns its failure to properly explain degrees of justification. Fortunately, Alston's epistemology contains the resources which can be developed to remedy this defect. The central idea here is that the justificatory status of a credence can not only be (ultima facie) defeated by a subject's own perspective, but also be (ultima facie) enhanced by that. Finally, it is argued that this idea applies to beliefs as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]