Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T06:46:27.553Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BonJour’s Way Out of the Sellarsian Dilemma and his Explanatory Account

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2013

BYEONG D. LEE
BYEONG D. LEE*
Affiliation:
Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

BonJour claims that he has found a way out of the Sellarsian dilemma. In this paper, I argue for three claims to show that his alleged solution fails. First, there are two requirements for being a good reason, and BonJour’s notion of non-conceptual awareness of sensory experience faces a serious dilemma with regard to these requirements. Second, he derives his idea of the so-called “constitutive awareness of content” from his conception of conscious occurrent belief. But this conception also faces an analogous dilemma with regard to these requirements. Third, his explanatory account faces the problem of representation.

BonJour affirme qu’il a trouvé un moyen de sortir du dilemme sellarsien de la justification non-doxastique. Dans cet article, je soutiens trois thèses afin de montrer que sa solution alléguée échoue. Tout d’abord, il y a deux exigences pour qu’une raison soit bonne, et la notion de prise de conscience non-conceptuelle de l’expérience sensorielle développée par BonJour donne lieu à un dilemme sérieux en ce qui concerne ces exigences. Deuxièmement, il tire son idée de la soi-disant «prise de conscience constitutive du contenu» de sa conception de la croyance consciente et occurrente. Mais cette conception conduit à un dilemme analogue à l’égard de ces exigences. Troisièmement, son explication se heurte au problème de la représentation.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , June 2013 , pp. 287 - 304
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2013 

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

Bergmann, Michael 2006a “BonJour’s Dilemma.” Philosophical Studies 131: 679–693.Google Scholar
Bergmann, Michael 2006b “A Dilemma for Internalism.” In Knowledge and Reality: Essays in Honor of Alvin Plantinga, eds. Crisp, T.M., Davidson, M., Vander Laan, D., 137–177. Dordrecht: SpringerGoogle Scholar
BonJour, Laurence 1985 The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
BonJour, Laurence 2001 “Toward a Defense of Empirical Foundationalism.” In Resurrecting Old-Fashioned Foundationalism, ed. DePaul, Michael R., 21–38, Landham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
BonJour, Laurence 2003 “A Version of Internalist Foundationalism.” In BonJour & Sosa 2003: 3–96.Google Scholar
BonJour, Laurence 2006 “Replies.” Philosophical Studies 131: 743–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BonJour, Laurence, and Sosa, Ernest 2003 Epistemic Justification: Internalism vs. Externalism, Foundationalism vs. Virtues. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Burge, Tyler 1979 “Individualism and the Mental.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4: 73–121.Google Scholar
Feldman, Richard 2006 “BonJour and Sosa on Internalism, Externalism, and Basic Beliefs.” Philosophical Studies 131: 713–728.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fumerton, Richard 1995 Metaepistemology and Skepticism. Landham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel 1963 Critique of Pure Reason, translated by Kemp Smith, Norman. London: Macmillan & Co.Google Scholar
Kelly, Thomas 2006 “The Cost of Skepticism: Who Pays?” Philosophical Studies 131: 695–712.Google Scholar
Lee, Byeong D. 2004 “Finkelstein on the Distinction between Conscious and Unconscious Belief.” Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review 43: 707–16.Google Scholar
Lehrer, Keith 2000 Theory of Knowledge. Second Edition. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Moser, Paul 1985 Empirical Justification. Boston: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary 1973 “Meaning and Reference.” Journal of Philosophy 70: 699–711.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary 1975 “The Meaning of ‘Meaning’.” In his Philosophical Papers, Vol. 2: Mind, Language and Reality, 215–271. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid 1963 “Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind.” In his Science, Perception and Reality, 127–196. Atascadero: Ridgeview.Google Scholar
Sellars, Wilfrid 1975 “The Structure of Knowledge,” In Action, Knowledge and Reality: Critical Studies in Honor of Wilfrid Sellars, ed. Castaňeda, Hector-Neri, 295–347. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar