Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T20:09:08.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Common sense in Thomas Reid

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

John Greco
John Greco*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, Saint Louis University, 3800 Lindell Blvd, Adorjan Hall 306, Saint Louis, MO, 63108
*
Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explains the nature and role of common sense in Reid and uses the exposition to answer some of Reid's critics. The key to defending Reid is to distinguish between two kinds of priority that common sense beliefs are supposed to enjoy. Common sense beliefs enjoy epistemological priority in that they constitute a foundation for knowledge; i.e. they have evidential status without being grounded in further evidence themselves. Common sense beliefs enjoy methodological priority in that they constrain philosophical theory: they serve as pre-theoretical commitments that philosophical theories ought to respect in the absence of good reasons for rejecting them.

Keywords

Thomas Reidcommon sensefirst principlesskepticismepistemology
Type
Epistemology
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue S1: New Essays on Reid , July 2011 , pp. 142 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Clark, Kelly James 2004. “Religious Epistemology.” In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/relig-ep/.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald 1992. “A Coherence Theory of Truth and Knowledge.” In Truth and Interpretation: Perspectives on the Philosophy of Donald Davidson, edited by LePore, Ernest Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Depaul, Michael 1986. “Reflective Equilibrium and Foundationalism.” American Philosophical Quarterly 23: 59–69.Google Scholar
Foley, Richard 1983. “Epistemic Conservativism.” Philosophical Studies 43: 165–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1902. Prolegomena to any Future Metaphysics. Translated by Carus, Paul New York: Open Court.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Keith 1974. Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Keith 1989. Thomas Reid. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin 1993. Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Thomas 1983. An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense and Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, both in Thomas Reid, Philosophical Works, edited by Bracken, H. M. Hildesheim: Georg Olms.Google Scholar
Rorty, Richard 1979. Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rot, Hans 2001. Change, Choice and Inference: A Study of Belief Revision and Nonmonotonic Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rysiew, Patrick 2002. “Reid and Epistemic Naturalism.” The Philosophical Quarterly 52: 437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, Patrick 2005. “Reidian Evidence.” Journal of Scottish Philosophy 3: 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, Ernest 1980. “The Raft and the Pyramid: Coherence Versus Foundations in the Theory of Knowledge.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 5: 3–26. Reprinted in Ernest Sosa, Knowledge in Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 2005. “Disputing about Words? Of Fallible Foundations and Modest Metanarratives.” In Christianity and the Postmodern Turn: Six Views, edited by Penner, Myron B. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas 2001. Thomas Reid and the Story of Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar