Résumé Cet article vise à restituer le contexte historique dans lequel la notion de donné a été introduite avant que Sellars n’en propose la critique systématique. À travers l’étude des textes fondateurs de C. I. Lewis et H. H. Price et des objections auxquelles ils se sont efforcés de répondre, on exposera la nature des débats à la fois métaphysiques et épistémologiques qu’a, dès les années 1930, suscité la thèse selon laquelle l’expérience fournirait à la connaissance un donné fondamental qui (...) seul permettrait d’en assurer la validité empirique. Parce que le donné pur, indépendant de tout ce que l’esprit peut lui adjoindre lorsqu’il lui applique ses concepts, semble devoir demeurer ineffable et inconnaissable pour nous, il était dès l’origine tout à fait problématique non seulement d’en reconnaître l’existence, mais encore plus de chercher à bâtir sur une telle base – comme bien des empiristes ont pourtant prétendu le faire au vingtième siècle – une conception réaliste des rapports entre l’esprit et le monde (insistant sur leur indépendance réciproque) et une conception fondationnaliste de la structure de la connaissance. C’est néanmoins à Sellars qu’il reviendra de démontrer la vacuité d’un tel projet. (shrink)

Lewis's account of the role of sensory experience in empirical knowledge rests on the theses: (1) that one's apprehension of what is given in sensory experience is certain; (2) that unless there were such certain apprehension of the given, No knowledge would be possible; (3) that justification of one's other justified empirical beliefs always derives from one's apprehension of the given. I show that all three theses are false. That they are false provides further motivation for the theory of justification (...) I call "foundherentist", Which is fallibilist and permits mutual support (see my "theories of knowledge; an analytic framework", "proceedings of the aristotelian society, Lxxxiii", 1982-3). (shrink)

Epistemological foundationalism has typically been thought to hold that in order to account for human knowledge we must countenance the direct Justification of some specific kind of beliefs, such as one's beliefs to the effect that one is having a certain sensation. How else, it may be thought, can one analyse Justification without confronting an infinite regress or a vicious circle? I believe that this conception of foundationalism has been so influential that most foundationalists and nearly all their critics have (...) failed to appreciate that foundationalism may be plausibly construed as a thesis mainly about the structure of a body of Justified beliefs. Central to the thesis, so interpreted, is that one's Justified beliefs divide into foundations and superstructure; but no particular content on the part of either set of beliefs need be required. This latitude regarding content is altogether appropriate; for if we use, as a guide to understanding foundationalism, the famous regress argument, from which the thesis derives much of its plausibility, then the only foundations required by the thesis are beliefs whose Justification does not depend on that of other beliefs. Precisely what beliefs these are is a controversial matter on which foundationalists may differ. (shrink)

There has been a revival of interest in Hegel of late among English-speaking philosophers. Although he is still regarded as maddeningly obscure, a number of important philosophers have been attracted by a doctrine prominently associated with Hegel, the coherence theory of truth. In order to hold the coherence theory of truth, it is obvious that you must hold what might be called the coherence theory of truth-testing as well: for if this theory is wrong and we can test some statements (...) by, for example, introspection as well as in terms of coherence, truth must involve something more than just coherence. My arguments against the coherence theory of truth-testing, since it is implied by the coherence theory proper, are indirectly against the coherence theory as well. I also argue that unless some version of the Private Language Argument is successful, it is virtually impossible to defend the coherence theory of truth-testing without denying the existence of experiences, thereby committing oneself to materialism. (shrink)

Lewis, according to Kuklick, was ‘a private person’, of ‘unsparing honesty and … utter dedication to the rational pursuit of truth’. He was, Kuklick continues, ‘equally uncompromising in what he expected of his readers, and as a result wrote for and lectured to a tiny group of scholars’. I hope that—since I occasionally find myself borrowing from him and frequently find myself arguing with him—I may count myself as one of the ‘tiny group of scholars’ for whom Lewis wrote. And (...) perhaps, by arguing with him again here, I may persuade some of you of the enduring interest of his work. (shrink)