Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:02:02.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Epistemic Pluralism: From Systems to Stances

Part of: Non-Western Philosophies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2019

JONARDON GANERI Open the ORCID record for JONARDON GANERI [Opens in a new window]
JONARDON GANERI*
Affiliation:
NEW YORK [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on insights from the epistemological work of the Jaina philosophers of classical India, I argue in defense of epistemic pluralism, the view that there are different but equally valid ways of knowing the world. The version of epistemic pluralism I defend is stance pluralism, a pluralism about epistemic stances or perspectives, understood to be policies or stratagems of knowing. I reject the view that the correct way to characterize epistemic pluralism is as consisting in a pluralism about epistemic systems.

Keywords

epistemic pluralismJaina philosophyPaul Boghossianstance
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Spring 2019 , pp. 1 - 21
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

I thank the following for their feedback on earlier versions of this essay: Miranda Fricker, Duncan Pritchard, Paul Boghossian, Annalisa Coliva, Karine Chemla, Mizumoto Masaharu, Bana Bashour, Monika Kirloskar-Steinbach, Timothy Williamson, and Stephen Stich. I have presented some of the ideas in workshops at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (Paris), Azim Premji University (Bangalore), Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (Kanazawa), and the University of California, Irvine, and I thank all the audiences for their comments.

This article is the third in a special series of commissioned articles on non-Western philosophies. The second article ‘The Thought Experimental Method: Avicenna's Flying Man Argument’, by Peter Adamson and Fedor Benevich, appeared in Volume 4, Issue 2, pp. 147–164.

References

Balcerowicz, Piotr. (2001) Jaina Epistemology in Historical and Comparative Perspective. Critical Edition and English Translation of Logical-Epistemological Treatises: Nyāyāvatāra, Nyāyāvatāra-vivṛti and Nyāyāvatāra-ṭippana. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner. [NA; NAV]Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, Kamaleswar, Johnson, E. H., and Kunst, Arnold. (1978) The Dialectical Method of Nāgārjuna: Vigrahavyāvartanī. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. [VV]Google Scholar
Boghossian, Paul. (2006) Fear of Knowledge: Against Relativism and Constructivism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cetina, Karin. (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Chakravartty, Anjan. (2004) ‘Stance Relativism: Empiricism versus Metaphysics’. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, 35, 173–84.Google Scholar
Clooney, Francis. (2017) ‘Mādhava's Garland of Jaimini's Reasons as Exemplary Mīmāṃsā Philosophy’. In Ganeri, Jonardon (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press), 577–97.Google Scholar
Dewey, John. (1959) Dictionary of Education. Edited by Winn, Ralph. New York: Philosophical Library.Google Scholar
Doctor, Thomas. (2014) ‘What if Madhyamaka is a Stance? Reflections on Contemporary Buddhist Hermeneutics’. 17th Congress of the International Association of Buddhist Studies, Vienna. https://iabs2014.univie.ac.at/academic-program/list-of-sections/7-buddhist-hermeneu/.Google Scholar
Dreyfus, Hubert and Taylor, Charles. (2015) Retrieving Realism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ganeri, Jonardon. (2012) The Self: Naturalism, Consciousness and the First-Person Stance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ganeri, Jonardon. (2014) Identity as Reasoned Choice: A South Asian Perspective on the Reach and Resources of Practical and Public Reason. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ganeri, Jonardon. (2017) Introduction to Jonardon Ganeri (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Indian Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press), 1–12.Google Scholar
Giaquinto, Marcus. (2015) ‘The Epistemology of Visual Thinking in Mathematics’. In Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-visual-thinking/.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (2004) Ancient Worlds, Modern Reflections: Philosophical Perspectives on Greek and Chinese Science and Culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (2007) Cognitive Variations: Reflections on the Unity and Diversity of the Human Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (2015) Analogical Investigations: Historical and Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Human Reasoning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. (2017) ‘Fortunes of Analogy’. Australasian Philosophical Review, 1, 236–49.Google Scholar
Pollock, Sheldon. (2001) ‘The New Intellectuals in Seventeenth-Century India’. Indian Economic and Social History Review, 38, 3–31.Google Scholar
Pryor, James. (2000) ‘The Skeptic and the Dogmatist’. Noûs, 34, 517–49.Google Scholar
Siegel, Susanna. (2012) ‘Cognitive Penetrability and Perceptual Justification‘. Noûs, 46, 201–22.Google Scholar
Tatia, Nathmal. (1994) That Which Is: A Classic Jain Manual for Understanding the True Nature of Reality: A Translation of Umāsvāti's Tattvārtha-sūtra. New Haven: Yale University Press. [TS]Google Scholar
Teller, Paul. (2004) ‘What Is a Stance?’ Philosophical Studies, 121, 159–70.Google Scholar
van Fraassen, B. C. (2002) The Empirical Stance. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Weil, Simone. (2003) Simone Weil on Colonialism: An Ethic of the Other. Edited and translated by Little, J. P.. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar