Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (630,000)
UTSG (50,000)
PHL (1,000)
all (2)
Lecture

PHL332H1 Lecture Notes - Foundationalism


Department
Philosophy
Course Code
PHL332H1
Professor
all

This preview shows half of the first page. to view the full 2 pages of the document.
Externalist: rejects evidentialism, a combination of a reliablelist + foundationalist.
The Standard View: denial of skepticism
Principles:
We know many things
Primary source of knowledge are…
Relativistic view: truth is a matter of fact, not of our mind. it changes over time.
Standard view denies the relativistic view. What is true is relative that is agreed
upon in a certain society. Standard view: its not possible that I know Ottawa is the
capital but you don’t; but in relativistic view that it is possible for both claims to
occur simultaneously.
Contextualist, in order for you to know, you have to believe and has to believe the
case, with some justification. What’s required in order to be justified, depends on
the context. Ex: is there milk in the drink? Yes. Are you sure? The standard for
knowledge has to be much more justified to claim that you know if you ask if the
parachute is safe? It’s relativistic in terms of the justification component but not in
the knowledge component.
K: T (relativistic) + B+ J (contextualistic)
KK thesis: to know that p, it requires for someone to know that they know p
Kp KKp (rejected)
Correspondence:
“Ottawa is the capital of Canada” is true. The sentence is true just in case that it is a
fact that Ottawa is the capital of Canada makes the sentence true
Deflationary: “S” is true <-> S. The sentence is true just in case that Ottawa is the
capital of Canada. truth is a redundant notion.
If justification is too strict, then it doesn’t seem to be the case that we know anything
at all.
No Defeater’s Theory:
Undermining vs rebutting defeaters
The sock is red
Not directly affect that the sock is red, but is affecting the cause of making the sock is
red. The light is making the sock red the cause, it breaks the link between the
senses of perceiving the sock is red to believe the sock is red. It is undermining he
inferential evidence. Called undermining defeaters
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version