Suspension-to-Suspension Justification Principles

Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
We will be in a better position to evaluate some important skeptical theses if we first investigate two questions about justified suspended judgment. One question is this: when, if ever, does one justified suspension confer justification on another suspension? And the other is this: what is the structure of justified suspension? The goal of this essay is to make headway at answering these questions. After surveying the four main views about the non-normative nature of suspended judgment and offering a taxonomy of the epistemic principles that might govern which suspended judgments are justified, I will isolate five important principles that might govern which suspended judgments are justified. I will call these suspension-to-suspension principles. I will then evaluate these principles by the lights of each of the four views about what suspensions are. I close by drawing some conclusions about the prospects for skepticism, the structure of justified suspended judgment, and the importance of theorizing about justified suspended judgment.
Categories
(categorize this paper)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
MURSJP
Upload history
Archival date: 2019-12-12
View other versions
Added to PP index
2019-12-12

Total views
42 ( #44,941 of 51,740 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
23 ( #25,039 of 51,740 )

How can I increase my downloads?

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