國立虎尾科技大學 |

Infinitism, Skepticism, and the Regress Problem.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,手稿 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Infinitism, Skepticism, and the Regress Problem./
作者:	Fosner, Carmen.
面頁冊數:	1 online resource (190 pages)
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-09(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International79-09A(E).
標題:	Philosophy. -
電子資源:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9780355954302

Infinitism, Skepticism, and the Regress Problem.
Fosner, Carmen.

Infinitism, Skepticism, and the Regress Problem. - 1 online resource (190 pages)

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-09(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Temple University, 2018.

Includes bibliographical references

It is a common view that rationally held beliefs require reasons sufficient to justify them. One debate about the nature of justification is defined by the Regress Problem, which offers four different accounts of the structure of sufficient reasons. I argue against the more popular foundationalist and coherentist responses to the problem, contending that infinitism, (the view that the structure of justification-conferring reasons supporting a belief is endless), can provide a viable theory of adequate justification. The version of infinitism I defend entails adopting an infinitist approach to propositional justification combined with a contextualist approach to doxastic justification. After the details of the foundationalist and coherentist solutions are discussed, I evaluate various versions of contextualism and describe how these different formulations can influence a response to the Regress Problem. To conclude, I articulate a contextualist-infinitist solution to the Regress Problem, arguing that this solution not only avoids the problems presented by foundationalism and coherentism, but also that it provides a viable account of how context-based factors influence knowledge claims by affecting our standards for justification.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9780355954302Subjects--Topical Terms:

559771
Philosophy.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Infinitism, Skepticism, and the Regress Problem.
LDR:02422ntm a2200325Ki 4500 001 918668
005 20181030085011.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2018 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9780355954302
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10786433
035 $a (MiAaPQ)temple:13239
035 $a AAI10786433
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Fosner, Carmen. $3 1193054
245 1 0 $a Infinitism, Skepticism, and the Regress Problem.
264 0 $c 2018
300 $a 1 online resource (190 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-09(E), Section: A.
500 $a Adviser: Gerald Vision.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Temple University, 2018.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a It is a common view that rationally held beliefs require reasons sufficient to justify them. One debate about the nature of justification is defined by the Regress Problem, which offers four different accounts of the structure of sufficient reasons. I argue against the more popular foundationalist and coherentist responses to the problem, contending that infinitism, (the view that the structure of justification-conferring reasons supporting a belief is endless), can provide a viable theory of adequate justification. The version of infinitism I defend entails adopting an infinitist approach to propositional justification combined with a contextualist approach to doxastic justification. After the details of the foundationalist and coherentist solutions are discussed, I evaluate various versions of contextualism and describe how these different formulations can influence a response to the Regress Problem. To conclude, I articulate a contextualist-infinitist solution to the Regress Problem, arguing that this solution not only avoids the problems presented by foundationalism and coherentism, but also that it provides a viable account of how context-based factors influence knowledge claims by affecting our standards for justification.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 559771
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0422
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a Temple University. $b Philosophy. $3 1183286
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 79-09A(E).
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10786433 $z click for full text (PQDT)