more from this thinker | more from this text
Full Idea
Moderate empiricists try unsuccessfully to explain a priori justification by means of analyticity, and radical empiricist attempts to dispense with a priori justification end in nearly total scepticism.
Gist of Idea
You can't explain away a priori justification as analyticity, and you can't totally give it up
Source
Laurence Bonjour (In Defence of Pure Reason [1998], §4.1)
Book Ref
Bonjour,Laurence: 'In Defense of Pure Reason' [CUP 1998], p.98
A Reaction
My working theory is neither of the above. Because we can abstract from the physical world, we can directly see/experience generalised (and even necessary) truths about it.
| 21398 | A presentation is true if we judge that no false presentation could appear like it [Zeno of Citium, by Cicero] |
| 5020 | Our thoughts are either dependent, or self-evident. All thoughts seem to end in the self-evident [Leibniz] |
| 16903 | Justifications show the ordering of truths, and the foundation is what is self-evident [Frege, by Jeshion] |
| 8885 | Some features of a thought are known directly, but others must be inferred [Sosa] |
| 3696 | A priori justification requires understanding but no experience [Bonjour] |
| 3703 | You can't explain away a priori justification as analyticity, and you can't totally give it up [Bonjour] |
| 3706 | A priori justification can vary in degree [Bonjour] |
| 6357 | Reason cannot be an ultimate foundation, because rational justification requires prior beliefs [Pollock/Cruz] |