Philosophical producers, philosophical consumers, and the metaphilosophical value of original texts

Author:

Landes EthanORCID

Abstract

AbstractIn recent years, two competing methodological frameworks have developed in the study of the epistemology of philosophy. The traditional camp, led by experimental philosophy and its allies, has made inferences about the epistemology of philosophy based on the reactions, or intuitions, people have to works of philosophy. In contrast, multiple authors have followed the lead of Deutsch and Cappelen by setting aside experimental data in favor of inferences based on careful examination of the text of notable works of philosophy. In other words, the debate is split between authors focusing on philosophy’s consumption and those focusing on philosophy’s production. This paper examines the motivation for focusing on original texts and other evidence of philosophy’s production and finds it lacking. Drawing upon Hills’ distinction between propagation and transmission, I argue that the social epistemology of philosophy does not justify the recent focus on original texts of philosophy. Because the philosophical knowledge of consumers of philosophy is likely inspired by producers of philosophy, as opposed to epistemically grounded in the producers’ epistemic states, experimental philosophy had it right all along—if we want to know the epistemic standing of philosophy, we need to look to philosophy’s consumers.

Funder

Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung

University of Zurich

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Philosophy

Reference56 articles.

1. Anscombe, E. (1979). What is it to believe someone? In C. F. Delaney (Ed.), Rationality and religious belief. University of Notre Dame Press. https://philpapers.org/rec/ANSWII

2. Bird, A. (2007). What is scientific progress? Nous, 41(1), 64–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2007.00638.x

3. Bourget, D., & Chalmers, D. J. (2022). Philosophers on philosophy: The 2020 philpapers survey.

4. Bourget, D., & Chalmers, D. J. (2014). What do philosophers believe? Philosophical Studies, 170(3), 465–500.

5. Brown, J. (2017). The Gettier case and intuition. Explaining Knowledge: New Essays on the Gettier Problem, 191–211.

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Conceptual engineering is old news;The Philosophical Quarterly;2024-07-31

2. Intuition Talk and Reasoning Markers: A Corpus-Study from the Philosophy of Language;Revista de Humanidades de Valparaíso;2024-02-29

3. Arguing about thought experiments;Synthese;2023-06-12

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3