Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T03:37:26.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DOING (BETTER) WHAT COMES NATURALLY: ZAGZEBSKI ON RATIONALITY AND EPISTEMIC SELF-TRUST

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2015

Elizabeth Fricker
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I offer an account of what trust is, and of what epistemic self-trust consists in. I identify five distinct arguments extracted from Chapter 2 of Zagzebski's Epistemic Authority for the rationality and epistemic legitimacy of epistemic self-trust. I take issue with the general account of human rational self-regulation on which one of her arguments rests. Zagzebski maintains that this consists in restoring harmony in the psyche by eliminating conflict and so ending ‘dissonance’. I argue that epistemic rationality is distinct from psychic mechanisms aimed at eliminating dissonance, and these two sometimes pull in opposed directions.

Type
Symposium: Zagzebski's Epistemic Authority: A Theory of Trust, Authority, and Autonomy in Belief
Information
Episteme , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , June 2016 , pp. 151 - 166
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Alston, W. 1986. ‘Epistemic Circularity.’ Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 47: 1–30.Google Scholar
Baier, A. 1995a. ‘Sustaining Trust.’ In Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Baier, A. 1995b. ‘Trust and Antitrust.’ In Moral Prejudices: Essays on Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, R. [1637] 1985. The Philosophical Writings of Descartes, Vol. 1. Cottingham, J., Stoothoff, R., and Murdoch, D. (eds and transl.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Foley, R. 2001. Intellectual Trust in Oneself and Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fricker, E. 2014. ‘Epistemic Trust in Oneself and Others – an Argument from Analogy?’ In O'Connor, T. and Callahan, L. (eds), Religious Faith and Intellectual Virtue, pp. 174–203. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hieronymi, P. 2005. ‘The Wrong Kind of Reason.’ Journal of Philosophy, 102: 437–57.Google Scholar
Holton, R. 1994. ‘Deciding to Trust, Coming to Believe.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 72: 63–76.Google Scholar
Hume, D. [1748] 1975. An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Niddich, P. H. and Selby-Bigge, L. A. (eds). Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Jones, K. 1996. ‘Trust as an Affective Attitude.’ Ethics, 107: 4–25.Google Scholar
McDowell, J. 1994. Mind and World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. 1963. ‘Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind.’ In Science, Perception and Reality. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Strawson, P. F. 1952. Introduction to Logical Theory. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Van Cleve, J. 1979. ‘Foundationalism, Epistemic Principles and the Cartesian Circle.’ Philosophical Review, 88: 55–91.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, L. 2012. Epistemic Authority. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar