Skip to main content
Philosophy

Return to Question

added 161 characters in body
Source Link
J D
J D
  • 35.6k
  • 4
  • 30
  • 125

In his 1966 book "Theory of Knowledge," Roderick ChisolmTheory of Knowledge Roderick Chisolm provides two sets of questions:

  1. What do we know? or What is the extent of our knowledge?

  2. How do we know? or What is the criterion for deciding whether we have knowledge in any particular case?

Chisolm describes different ways of responding to these questions. One of them is the skeptic. The skeptic charges that, since we cannot have an answer to one set without first answering the other set and vice versa, we are plunged into an escapable vicious circularity and are unable to answer either of them.

Have any philosophers pryor to Chisolm taken this problem (or something like it) seriously and come up with an answer of their own with which they could rebut the skeptic's answer? If so, who, and how did they do it?Have any philosophers prior to Chisolm taken this problem (or something like it) seriously and come up with an answer of their own with which they could rebut the skeptic's answer? If so, who, and how did they do it?

In his 1966 book "Theory of Knowledge," Roderick Chisolm provides two sets of questions:

  1. What do we know? or What is the extent of our knowledge?

  2. How do we know? or What is the criterion for deciding whether we have knowledge in any particular case?

Chisolm describes different ways of responding to these questions. One of them is the skeptic. The skeptic charges that, since we cannot have an answer to one set without first answering the other set and vice versa, we are plunged into an escapable vicious circularity and are unable to answer either of them.

Have any philosophers pryor to Chisolm taken this problem (or something like it) seriously and come up with an answer of their own with which they could rebut the skeptic's answer? If so, who, and how did they do it?

In his 1966 book Theory of Knowledge Roderick Chisolm provides two sets of questions:

  1. What do we know? or What is the extent of our knowledge?

  2. How do we know? or What is the criterion for deciding whether we have knowledge in any particular case?

Chisolm describes different ways of responding to these questions. One of them is the skeptic. The skeptic charges that, since we cannot have an answer to one set without first answering the other set and vice versa, we are plunged into an escapable vicious circularity and are unable to answer either of them.

Have any philosophers prior to Chisolm taken this problem (or something like it) seriously and come up with an answer of their own with which they could rebut the skeptic's answer? If so, who, and how did they do it?

Source Link
Joa
Joa
  • 508
  • 2
  • 10

The Problem of the Criterion in the history of philosophy

In his 1966 book "Theory of Knowledge," Roderick Chisolm provides two sets of questions:

  1. What do we know? or What is the extent of our knowledge?

  2. How do we know? or What is the criterion for deciding whether we have knowledge in any particular case?

Chisolm describes different ways of responding to these questions. One of them is the skeptic. The skeptic charges that, since we cannot have an answer to one set without first answering the other set and vice versa, we are plunged into an escapable vicious circularity and are unable to answer either of them.

Have any philosophers pryor to Chisolm taken this problem (or something like it) seriously and come up with an answer of their own with which they could rebut the skeptic's answer? If so, who, and how did they do it?