Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:34:31.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reid's First Principle #7

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2020

Patrick Rysiew
Patrick Rysiew*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, The University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3045, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P4, Canada
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

By Reid's own account, ‘That the natural faculties, by which we distinguish truth from error, are not fallacious’ (FP#7), has a special place among the First Principles of Contingent Truths. Some have found that claim puzzling, but it is not. Contrary to what's usually assumed, certain FPs preceding FP#7 do not already assert the better part of what FP#7 explicitly states. FP#7 is needed because there is nothing epistemological in the FPs that precede it; and its special place among the FPs is a straightforward consequence of its being both perfectly general and distinctively epistemological.

Keywords

first principlesreliabilityThomas ReidPhilip De BaryKeith Lehrer
Type
Epistemology
Information
Canadian Journal of Philosophy , Volume 41 , Issue S1: New Essays on Reid , July 2011 , pp. 167 - 182
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

Alston, William 1985. “Thomas Reid on Epistemic Principles.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 2: 435–452.Google Scholar
De Bary, Thomas 2000. “Thomas Reid's Metaprinciple.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly LXXIV (3): 373–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Bary, Thomas 2002. Thomas Reid and Scepticism: His Reliabilist Response. New York: Routledge. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 181Google Scholar
Donnellan, Keith S. 1966. “Reference and Definite Descriptions.” The Philosophical Review 75 (3): 281–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, John 2002. “How to Reid Moore.” The Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209): 544–563. Reprinted in Haldane and Read eds., 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greco, John 2010. Achieving Knowledge: A Virtue-Theoretic Account of Epistemic Normativity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haldane, John and Read, Stephen eds. 2003. The Philosophy of Thomas Reid: A Collection of Essays. Oxford: Blackwell. Lehrer, Keith. 1989. Thomas Reid. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Keith 1990. “Chisholm, Reid, and the Problem of the Epistemic Surd.” Philosophical Studies 60 (1–2): 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehrer, Keith 1998. “Reid, Hume and Common Sense.” Reid Studies 2 (1): 15–25.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Keith and Warner, Bradley 2000. “Reid, God and Epistemology.” American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly LXXIV (3): 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemos, Noah 2004. Common Sense: A Contemporary Defense. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Thomas 1885. Philosophical Works, edited by William Hamilton. 8thedition Georg Olms Verlag.Google Scholar
Reid, Thomas (1764) 1997. An Inquiry into the Human Mind on the Principles of Common Sense, edited by Brookes, Derek R. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reid, Thomas (1785) 1997. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man, edited by Brookes, Derek R. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Rysiew, Patrick 2002. “Reid and Epistemic Naturalism.” The Philosophical Quarterly 52 (209): 437–456. Reprinted in Haldane and Read, eds., 24–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, Patrick 2005. “Reidian Evidence.” Journal of Scottish Philosophy 3 (2): 107–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rysiew, Patrick 2011. “Making it Evident: Evidence and Evidentness, Justification and Belief.” In Evidentialism and its Discontents, edited by Dougherty, Trent 207–225. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosa, Ernest and Cleve, James Van 2001. “Thomas Reid.” In The Blackwell Guide to the Modern Philosophers: From Descartes to Nietzsche, edited by Emmanuel, S. 179–200. Malden, Ma & Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, James 1999. “Reid on the First Principles of Contingent Truths.” Reid Studies 3 (1): 3–30.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, James 2008. “Reid's Response to the Skeptic.” In The Oxford Handbook of Skepticism, edited by Greco, John 286–309. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wolterstorff, Nicholas 2001. Thomas Reid and the Story of Epistemology. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar