RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Audi, Robert. Epistemology. Routledge
Some sections were dense sledding, like the one on sense perception. Still, even those sections were worth it. I found his discussion on John Locke very clear and introductory, allowing one to move to a reading of Locke himself. In the first few chapters Audi is trying to show that memory, perception, and testimony serve as sources of belief, if not intended to serve as foundations.
Audi gives us a fine discussion on justified, true belief and the architecture of knowledge. This leads to the discussion of internalism vs. externalism and how that entails/shapes other beliefs.
The two chapters on skepticism were good and the reader is aware of all the problems as a result: problem of other minds; problem of induction, etc. He ends with a decent (if inadequate at points) rebuttal to skepticism: if skepticism is true, can I know that I am thinking about skepticism? He offers a positive defense of common-sense (though not necessarily the Reidian variety). one does not have to have the KK principle: knowing entails knowing that one knows. This leads to an infinite regress.
Observations
*Ironically, sometimes Audi’s endnotes are more enlightening than the main argument themselves.
*The book end with a wonderful annotated bibliography (the inclusion of which is what separates great books from good books).
*The section on testimony was quite good. He did note Reid’s contributions and he did deal with Plantinga, but I think his chapter would have been stronger if Audi reworked the argument to say that one is warranted by having a prima-facie credulity in testimony until sufficient defeaters prove otherwise.
*Sometimes when the narrative appears to get bogged down in highly technical details, Audi will rescue the argument with a subsequently fine chapter. This keeps the reader from despairing.
*As every reviewer has noted, the prose is painful. To be fair I am not sure how this could have been otherwise. This is a highly technical and advanced (the subtitle notwithstanding) book on a specific subset of philosophy. It’s going to be hard reading no matter what.
Some sections were dense sledding, like the one on sense perception. Still, even those sections were worth it. I found his discussion on John Locke very clear and introductory, allowing one to move to a reading of Locke himself. In the first few chapters Audi is trying to show that memory, perception, and testimony serve as sources of belief, if not intended to serve as foundations.
Audi gives us a fine discussion on justified, true belief and the architecture of knowledge. This leads to the discussion of internalism vs. externalism and how that entails/shapes other beliefs.
The two chapters on skepticism were good and the reader is aware of all the problems as a result: problem of other minds; problem of induction, etc. He ends with a decent (if inadequate at points) rebuttal to skepticism: if skepticism is true, can I know that I am thinking about skepticism? He offers a positive defense of common-sense (though not necessarily the Reidian variety). one does not have to have the KK principle: knowing entails knowing that one knows. This leads to an infinite regress.
Observations
*Ironically, sometimes Audi’s endnotes are more enlightening than the main argument themselves.
*The book end with a wonderful annotated bibliography (the inclusion of which is what separates great books from good books).
*The section on testimony was quite good. He did note Reid’s contributions and he did deal with Plantinga, but I think his chapter would have been stronger if Audi reworked the argument to say that one is warranted by having a prima-facie credulity in testimony until sufficient defeaters prove otherwise.
*Sometimes when the narrative appears to get bogged down in highly technical details, Audi will rescue the argument with a subsequently fine chapter. This keeps the reader from despairing.
*As every reviewer has noted, the prose is painful. To be fair I am not sure how this could have been otherwise. This is a highly technical and advanced (the subtitle notwithstanding) book on a specific subset of philosophy. It’s going to be hard reading no matter what.
