Rationalism and the Content of Intuitive Judgements

Mind 120 (478):263-327 (2011)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
It is commonly held that our intuitive judgements about imaginary problem cases are justified a priori, if and when they are justified at all. In this paper I defend this view — ‘rationalism’ — against a recent objection by Timothy Williamson. I argue that his objection fails on multiple grounds, but the reasons why it fails are instructive. Williamson argues from a claim about the semantics of intuitive judgements, to a claim about their psychological underpinnings, to the denial of rationalism. I argue that the psychological claim — that a capacity for mental simulation explains our intuitive judgements — does not, even if true, provide reasons to reject rationalism. (More generally, a simulation hypothesis, about any category of judgements, is very limited in its epistemological implications: it is pitched at a level of explanation that is insensitive to central epistemic distinctions.) I also argue that Williamson’s semantic claim — that intuitive judgements are judgements of counterfactuals — is mistaken; rather, I propose, they are a certain kind of metaphysical possibility judgement. Several other competing proposals are also examined and criticized
Keywords
No keywords specified (fix it)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
MALRAT-2
Revision history
Archival date: 2010-11-25
View upload history
References found in this work BETA

View all 146 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
Running Risks Morally.Weatherson, Brian
The Epistemology of Modality.Strohminger, Margot & Yli-Vakkuri, Juhani

View all 34 citations / Add more citations

Added to PP index
2010-11-25

Total views
1,216 ( #1,930 of 46,477 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
139 ( #3,786 of 46,477 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks to external links.