Users Product Reviews: |
Product Review Summary: Love this theory of knowledge This book is the second in Plantinga's three part series on Warrant. This book outlines Plantinga's theory of warrant and how it fits into what we call "knowledge." It is a bold and brilliant theory of knowledge.
Plantinga begins by defining warrant as that which, in addition to true belief, is sufficient for one to have knowledge. Then he begins to investigate what kinds of properties this "warrant" should have. This is a very clever way of coming up with a good definition of warrant. Plantinga comes up with examples to illustrate that warrant must include one's cognitive faculties working properly in a proper environment, amongst other things. The examples are clear and innovative. After going through the important properties that warrant should have, Plantinga then discusses how this theory of knowledge relates to things like induction and a priori knowledge. Using this theory of warrant, he is able to package all our faculties into a coherent view.
This is the book in which Plantimna develops the so-called "Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism." With his theory of warrant fresh in mind, he builds up an argument about why there is little reason to hold to the reliability of out cognitive faculties given BOTH evolution and naturalism. Again, a very clever and original argument, but it should be noted that this argument against naturalism is NOT the main premise of this book. It is a "side note", a corollary to Plantinga's theory of knowledge. My reason for writing this is to say that even if one does not find that argument compelling, this should not stop them from reading the book because it is ultimately a book about knowledge and what constitutes knowledge. In this regard, Plantinga gives a stunningly convincing theory of knowledge. This sets up for his final book in the series "Warranted Christian Belief" which will give (I am told) Christian interpretations and applications of this theory of knowledge. Very exciting.
Product Review Summary: Watch a master philosopher DOING philosophy Reading and rereading this book is a treat. Plantinga is not just giving you his conclusions. It is almost as if you are sitting with him while he is working through the issues at hand and explaining his reasoning to you. You read as he carefully considers evidence and counter-evidence. His tentative conclusions never seem to outstretch the evidence that he has marshaled thus far. The opportunity to observe one of the world's great living philosophers at work should not be missed.
This book is the second in a trilogy. In the first volume, Warrant: The Current Debate, Plantinga carefully dealt with current theories in epistemology, specifically with the concept that is commonly referred to in the literature as justification. He showed how the other theories, though valuable in furthering the debate, are still lacking in specific ways.
In this volume, Plantinga lays out his own theory. He shows how it relates to other theories, and how it better deals with (or fails to deal with) certain recurring epistemological problems. As a reader, I appreciate his sense of humor and most of all, his humility. He doesn't jump up and down, call you names, and try to convince you that he is right when he knows that problems still remain (Dennett and Dawkins could learn from this; doing so would enhance their credibility). He `fesses up to the problems that must still be overcome. In doing so, he is making a valuable contribution to a conversation that began with Plato in Theaetetus, and is setting the agenda for further research.
Product Review Summary: Still The Correct Theory of Knowledge (More or Less) I don't claim that everything in this book is true (and didn't before), but I remain convinced that this is basically the right approach to knowledge. But since "cml" was content to say the same thing twice (presumably with a view to lowering this book's rating), so shall I be (with a view to raising it).As to Benacerraf's problem: it's a little hard to see what your objection to Plantinga's solution is if you say nothing in response except that Plantinga's solution is unsatisfactory. Saying it twice--even with clumsy rhetorical flourishes--doesn't clarify the matter. Are you just congenitally anti-theistic, so that this dissatisfaction is a symptom of your personal religious hang-ups, or do you have a reason? If you have, it isn't too much to ask you to at least gesture at it, I should think.
Product Review Summary: Interesting, but not entirely satisfying In WPF, Plantinga tries to provide an account of warrant that is superior to rivals such as Goldman's process reliabilism. The work suffers from the following defects. First, he is too quick in dismissing rival accounts. Second, his arguments against evolutionary-naturalism will only convince those who already think that evolutionary naturalism is false. Third, while he is quick to dismiss rival views, his own positive answers to philosophical problems are entirely unsatisfactory. Consider his 'solution' to the Benacerraf problem. It seems that mathematical statements refer to abstract objects. It also seems that there must be a causal connection between our belief forming processes and the objects of belief if those beliefs are to be thought of as viable candidates for knowledge. Plantinga says that this is not a problem for the theist who is willing to say that mathematical principles are structures of the divine mind since surely the connection between God and God's subjects is not problematic. How one could think that Benacerraf's problem is a genuine one and that this is an adequate solution is beyond me. While his WCD is to be recommended to those wanting an introduction to epistemology, this book is of limited merit.
Product Review Summary: The Correct Theory of Knowledge! There are two epistemological works I think every philosopher should read. One is David Lewis' "Elusive Knowledge", which should be available in any good anthology of papers on the subject. The other is "Warrant and Proper Function". For what "Naming and Necessity" did for de re modality, "Warrant" will do for epistemology. If you give it a thorough, unbiased reading--that means you put out of your head all the warped notions we've inherited from Descartes, Hume, Kant, and the like--you will realize that this, or something like it, has got to be the correct approach to an account of knowledge. Among its many achievements, this superb book solves Gettier's problem, explains the difference between knowledge and true belief, distinguishes knowledge from justified true belief, solves the "problems" of the external world, other minds, and Cartesian skepticism generally, shows how we can know so much through the testimony of others, explains how to understand induction and the notion of evidence, and even takes a crack at analyzing epistemic probability. In addition to this, it explores the notion of proper function, itself of immense (and unappreciated) philosophical importance, and concludes with a delightful exposition of the self-imposed dialectical problems of evolutionary naturalism. What more can a philosopher ask for?
|
Similar Products with reviews:
Warrant: The Current Debate
Warranted Christian Belief
The Nature of Necessity (Clarendon Library of Logic and Philosophy)
God and Other Minds: A Study of the Rational Justification of Belief in God (Cornell Paperbacks)
God, Freedom, and Evil
|
