1:10 there are certain beliefs that do not have to be justified through inference( or justified in some non-inferential way) 2:05 strong foundationalism and weak foundationalism 2:25 strong: Beyond criticism 3:00 weak: can be strengthened given more justification 4:05 what kind of beliefs could those be? 2 classes of answers, self-evident, observation 5:45 self-evident, René Descartes, Cogito 7:20 self-evident, mathematics and logic 9:50 two worries of self-evident truth, rather narrow 11:35 I hold a green pen 12:30 bring us to content through God: Descartes, Spinoza 13:45 experience, non-inferential 15:15 usually observations are not Beyond criticism 16:35 change or reinterpret the notion of observation: impression 18:00 Descartes, internal, external 18:45 weak foundationalism 20:35 pretty hard to distinguish from coherentism
I like the discussion between Elgin and Van Cleve, chapter 10 of Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 2nd Edition. That's what I read with my students. But of course there's a huge literature. :-)
very, very, very well explained. Thank you.
1:10 there are certain beliefs that do not have to be justified through inference( or justified in some non-inferential way)
2:05 strong foundationalism and weak foundationalism
2:25 strong: Beyond criticism
3:00 weak: can be strengthened given more justification
4:05 what kind of beliefs could those be? 2 classes of answers, self-evident, observation
5:45 self-evident, René Descartes, Cogito
7:20 self-evident, mathematics and logic
9:50 two worries of self-evident truth, rather narrow
11:35 I hold a green pen
12:30 bring us to content through God: Descartes, Spinoza
13:45 experience, non-inferential
15:15 usually observations are not Beyond criticism
16:35 change or reinterpret the notion of observation: impression
18:00 Descartes, internal, external
18:45 weak foundationalism
20:35 pretty hard to distinguish from coherentism
I like the account that Laurence Bonjour defends in "In Defence of Pure Reason"
Thank you very much for all your videos. Extremely enlightening.
Glad you like them!
Great video! What readings would you recommend for foundationalism (strong and weak), coherentism and discussions between the two?
I like the discussion between Elgin and Van Cleve, chapter 10 of Contemporary Debates in Epistemology, 2nd Edition. That's what I read with my students. But of course there's a huge literature. :-)
How about a quick sum up at the end? Nice work.
Everything is so cool except the innovation of strong foundationalism and weak foundationalism it doesn't exist in the scripture and so it's heresay