Add to ORKGABSTRACT In this paper I defend a version of Wittgensteininan contextualism. This is a view about justification on which some beliefs are epistemically appropriate because evidence cannot be adduced in their favour. I trace the history of the view from Wittgenstein and Ortega to the present day, defend one version from the charge of relativism, and suggest some applications of the view both within and without philosophy
The first chapter of this dissertation argues that not all epistemic harms are unjust. I coined the ...
In this paper, I defend a reasons-first view of epistemic justification, according to which the just...
Contextualists with regard to knowledge argue that the truth of the claim \u27x knows that P\u27 is ...
ABSTRACT In this paper I defend a version of Wittgensteininan contextualism. This is a vie...
I shall investigate Wittgenstein's view of the structure of justification comparing it to Foundation...
What do we mean when we say that a belief is justified? What justifies a belief? These are two very ...
"In this thesis the author investigates the rationality of religious belief. In the first chapter he...
1. There is a way of thinking about epistemic justification that holds that it dwells solely in beli...
This paper presents a new argument for a form of contextualism about 'justified belief', the argumen...
This work is focused on the interconnections between evidence, knowledge, and justification. I defen...
This book develops and defends a version of epistemic contextualism, that is, of the view that the t...
It is plausible that there are epistemic reasons bearing on a distinctively epistemic standard of co...
The perceived problematics that envelop foundational status of epistemic justification informed some...
On a standard way of thinking about the relationships between evidence, reasons, and epistemic justi...
In this paper, I want to characterize Wittgenstein"s epistemology, namely his contextualism, present...
The first chapter of this dissertation argues that not all epistemic harms are unjust. I coined the ...
In this paper, I defend a reasons-first view of epistemic justification, according to which the just...
Contextualists with regard to knowledge argue that the truth of the claim \u27x knows that P\u27 is ...
ABSTRACT In this paper I defend a version of Wittgensteininan contextualism. This is a vie...
I shall investigate Wittgenstein's view of the structure of justification comparing it to Foundation...
What do we mean when we say that a belief is justified? What justifies a belief? These are two very ...
"In this thesis the author investigates the rationality of religious belief. In the first chapter he...
1. There is a way of thinking about epistemic justification that holds that it dwells solely in beli...
This paper presents a new argument for a form of contextualism about 'justified belief', the argumen...
This work is focused on the interconnections between evidence, knowledge, and justification. I defen...
This book develops and defends a version of epistemic contextualism, that is, of the view that the t...
It is plausible that there are epistemic reasons bearing on a distinctively epistemic standard of co...
The perceived problematics that envelop foundational status of epistemic justification informed some...
On a standard way of thinking about the relationships between evidence, reasons, and epistemic justi...
In this paper, I want to characterize Wittgenstein"s epistemology, namely his contextualism, present...
The first chapter of this dissertation argues that not all epistemic harms are unjust. I coined the ...
In this paper, I defend a reasons-first view of epistemic justification, according to which the just...
Contextualists with regard to knowledge argue that the truth of the claim \u27x knows that P\u27 is ...