4 found
Order:
  1.  24
    Knowledgeably Responding to Reasons.J. J. Cunningham - forthcoming - Erkenntnis.
    Jennifer Hornsby has defended the Reasons-Knowledge Thesis (RKT): the claim that Φ-ing because p requires knowing that p, where the `because' at issue is a rationalising `because'. She defends (RKT) by appeal to the thought that it provides the best explanation of why the subject in a certain sort of Gettier Case fails to be in a position to Φ because p. Dustin Locke and, separately, Nick Hughes, present some modified barn-façade cases which (a) seem to constitute counterexamples to (RKT) (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  24
    Is Believing for a Normative Reason a Composite Condition?J. J. Cunningham - forthcoming - Synthese.
    Here is a surprisingly neglected question in contemporary epistemology: what is it for an agent to believe that p in response to a normative reason for them to believe that p? On one style of answer, believing for the normative reason that q factors into believing that p in the light of the apparent reason that q, where one can be in that kind of state even if q is false, in conjunction with further independent conditions such as q's being (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3.  22
    The Formulation of Disjunctivism About Φ-Ing for a Reason.J. J. Cunningham - forthcoming - Philosophical Quarterly.
    We can contrast rationalising explanations of the form 'S Φs because p' with those of the form 'S Φs because S believes that p'. According the Common Kind View, the two sorts of explanation are the same. The Disjunctive View denies this. This paper sets out to elucidate the sense in which the Common Kind Theorist asserts, but the Disjunctivist denies, that the two explanations are the same. I suggest that, in the light of the distinction between kinds of explanation (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Reflective Epistemological Disjunctivism.J. J. Cunningham - 2016 - Episteme 13 (1):111-132.
    It is now common to distinguish Metaphysical from Epistemological Disjunctivism. It is equally common to suggest that it is at least not obvious that the latter requires a commitment to the former: at the very least, a suitable bridge principle will need to be identified which takes one from the latter to the former. This paper identifies a plausible-looking bridge principle that takes one from the version of Epistemological Disjunctivism defended by John McDowell and Duncan Pritchard, which I label Reflective (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography