tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2901981943826336580..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Plantinga's case against the classical foundationalist account of properly basic beliefsVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32715038381953666102015-02-16T19:06:31.260-07:002015-02-16T19:06:31.260-07:00Johnny-Dee,
Supposing that I am right (and that&#...Johnny-Dee,<br /><br />Supposing that I am right (and that's granting me a lot more room than I deserve), there is no reason to need an "in principle" reason. Now, I've never read anything by Plantinga, (sorry, maybe I should just hold my tongue, eh?), so I can't actually argue against your claim that Plantinga is making the case that CF is necessarily false, but that doesn't seem to matter: false is false, whether contingent or necessary. If turns out that CF is only contingently false, then Plantinga's argument against CF is defeasible and we continue on debating.<br /><br />Anyways, thanks for the reading recommendation. I haven't actually ever come across a recent defense of the given. I'll be excited to read it when I get the chance.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42395139766052178262015-02-16T11:47:46.851-07:002015-02-16T11:47:46.851-07:00Dan,
Suppose you are right. Then, Plantinga's...Dan,<br /><br />Suppose you are right. Then, Plantinga's argument offers nothing new. There's no "in principle" reason to think CF is false or misguided or doomed to self-referential failure. Plantinga makes it seem like we have good reason to dismiss CF without getting bogged down in the details of the various arguments for and against CF. In other words, Plantinga is making the case that CF is <b>necessarily</b> false. To retreat to the claim that it is <b>contingently</b> false is essentially to concede Plantinga's whole argument!<br /><br />As for CF being a mostly dead option, I think that's an overstatement (Fumerton and BonJour, for instance, are not exactly lightweights in contemporary epistemology), but it's also irrelevant. Truth is not determined by popularity or what's <i>en vogue</i>. If you think Sellars's arguments present a good critique of CF, I'd recommend reading Evan Fales's <i>A Defense of the Given</i>, which is a <i>tour de force</i> response to Sellarsian problems with CF. In any case, it sounds like the truth of CF can't be settled without looking at more detailed arguments given by defenders and critics of CF.Johnny-Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15636554916718241492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87672928949951653392015-02-15T10:21:27.235-07:002015-02-15T10:21:27.235-07:00Johnny-Dee,
I don't see why it's necessar...Johnny-Dee,<br /><br />I don't see why it's necessary for Plantinga to rehearse the very good arguments, e.g., Sellar's and Pierce's, against CF. The work has already been done for him. The recent resurgence of interest in it aside, CF is mostly a dead option; "contingently false" is still false.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-73858502368456103362015-02-13T04:43:07.335-07:002015-02-13T04:43:07.335-07:00Not everyone is convinced Plantinga's got a go...Not everyone is convinced Plantinga's got a good argument. I normally don't self-promote, but I have <a href="https://docs.google.com/a/maryu.marywood.edu/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=bWFyeXUubWFyeXdvb2QuZWR1fGpvaG4tZGVwb2UtcGhpbG9zb3BoeXxneDoxOGMzMzRjMDAxMmQ5MDli" rel="nofollow">published a paper directly in response to this argument</a>.Johnny-Deehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15636554916718241492noreply@blogger.com