All
 
|
 
 


Virtue Epistemology: Normativity, Conceptual Polarization and Some New Insights
 
PIIS023620070019515-3-1
DOI10.31857/S023620070019515-3
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Kostina O. Olegovna 
Affiliation: RAS Institute of Philosophy
Address: 12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow 109240, Russian Federation
Journal nameChelovek
EditionVolume 33 Issue 2
Pages129-146
Abstract

The influence of Willard Quine’s radical naturalistic approach, ambiguity in estimation of methodological naturalism and its role for philosophy, along with the challenging Gettier problem, all led to a fundamental revision of normativity in analytic epistemology. Intellectual virtues used as the basis of epistemic process broaden the horizon of epistemological research, while allowing the incorporation of norms and values into its subject field. Still, the scope of intellectual virtues underlying the concept of normativity is seen quite differently by the researchers of this interdisciplinary area. The main disagreement between virtue reliabilists and virtue responsiblists leads to conceptualization of the two systems, where are the sources of the virtues, instruments and the epistemic process itself are presented alternatively from different perspectives. Reliabilists relate the source of the epistemic virtue to adequately functioning perceptive apparatus and memory. They prioritize the results over the epistemic process itself leaving the issue of the subject’s responsibility out. At the same time responsibilists rest the responsibility for the results, as well as for the epistemic process, on the subject. The pathway, which leads the latter to knowledge, is required to be clear and honest — starting from the subject’s motivation and the instruments he or she uses, finishing with the final results. This antithesis requires the development of viable alternatives. Here one can find two of them: sentimentalist virtue epistemology of M. Slote, personalism of H. Battaly. Put into a broader context, the issue of intellectual virtues applied for epistemic process could provide a number of insights related to general social and research practices (responsibility for intellectual work, testimony, motivation, etc.), their ethical and epistemic ground.

Keywordsvirtue epistemology, normativity, epistemic subject, reliabilism, responsibilism, personalism, E. Sosa, D. Greco
Received06.04.2022
Publication date11.05.2022
Number of characters30766
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 310

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Kasavin I.T. Normy v poznanii i poznanie norm // Ehpistemologiya i filosofiya nauki. 2017. T. 54, № 4. C. 8–19.
2. Kasavin I.T. Ehpistemologiya dobrodetelej: k sorokaletiyu povorota v analiticheskoj filosofii // Ehpistemologiya i filosofiya nauki. 2019. T. 56, № 3. C. 6–19.
3. Kostina A.O. Normativnost', ehkspertiza i ehpistemologicheskij paternalizm v filosofii nauki // Ehpistemologiya i filosofiya nauki. 2019. T. 56, № 2. C. 229–241.
4. Kostina A.O. Ehpistemologiya ubezhdenij: poritsanie, doverie i ehpistemicheskie dobrodeteli sub'ekta // Ehpistemologiya i filosofiya nauki. 2020. T. 57, № 2. C. 231–237.
5. Alfano M. Expanding the Situationist Challenge to Responsibilist Virtue Epistemology. The Philosophical Quarterly. 2011. Vol. 62, N 247. P. 223–249.
6. Annas J. Intelligent Virtue. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2011.
7. Baehr J. Character, Responsibility and Virtue Epistemology. The Philosophical Quarterly. 2006. Vol. 56, N 223. P. 193–212.
8. Baehr J. Four Varieties of Character-Based Virtue Epistemology. The Southern Journal of Philosophy. 2008. Vol. 46, N 4. P. 469–502.
9. Battaly H. A Third Kind of Intellectual Virtue: Personalism. The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology, ed. by H. Battaly. New York: Routledge, 2019a. P. 115–126.
10. Battaly H. Intro. The Routledge handbook of virtue epistemology, ed. by    H. Battaly. New York: Routledge. 2019b. P. 1–11.
11. Battaly H. Virtue Epistemology. Philosophy Compass. 2008. Vol. 3(4). P. 639–663.
12. Beddor B., Pavese C. Modal Virtue Epistemology. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. 2018. Vol. 101, N 1. P. 61–79.
13. Bruin de B. Ethics and Global Financial Crisis: Why Incompetence is Worse Than Greed. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2015.
14. Carter J.A. Virtue Epistemology, Enhancement and Control. Metaphilosophy. 2018. Vol. 49, N 3. P. 283–304.
15. Carter A.J., Church I.M. On Epistemic Consequentialism and the Virtue Conflation Problem. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy. 2016. Vol. 5, Iss. 3. P. 239–248.
16. Christensen D. Epistemology of Disagreement: The Good News. Contemporary Epistemology, ed. by J. Fantl, M. McGrath, E. Sosa. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, 2019. P. 231‒248.
17. Crisp R. Virtue Ethics and Virtue Epistemology. Virtue and Vice, Moral and Epistemic, ed. by H. Battaly. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. P. 21–38.
18. Code L. Ecological Thinking: The Politics of Epistemic Location. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2006.
19. Connecting Virtues: Advances in Ethics, Epistemology and Political Philosophy, ed. by M. Croce, S. Vaccarezza. Oxford: Wiley, 2018.
20. Daukas N. Feminist Virtue Epistemology. The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology, ed. by H. Battaly. New York: Routledge, 2019. P. 379‒391.
21. Farrelly C. Virtue Epistemology and the “Epistemic Fitness” of Democracy. Political Studies Review. 2012. Vol. 10. P. 7‒22.
22. Fricker M. Epistemic Injustice and Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007.
23. Grasswick H. Epistemic Autonomy in a Social World of Knowing. The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology, ed. by H. Battaly. New York: Routledge, 2019. P. 196‒208.
24. Greco D. Safety, Explanation, Iteration. Philosophical Issues. 2016. Vol. 26, Iss.1. R. 187–208.
25. Ho Tsung-Hsing. Lucky Achievement: Virtue Epistemology on the Value of Knowledge. Ratio. 2018. Vol. 31, Iss. 3. P. 303–311.
26. Intellectual Virtue: Perspectives from Ethics and Epistemology, ed. by M. DePaul, L. Zagzebski. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003.
27. Kallestrup J., Pritchard D. Robust Virtue Epistemology and Epistemic Anti-individualism. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. 2012. N 93. P. 84‒103.
28. Kawall J. Virtue Epistemology and the Environment. The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology, ed. by H. Battaly. New York: Routledge, 2019. P. 392‒406.
29. Koscholke J. A New Argument for Goldman and Olsson's Solution to the Extra‐Value‐of‐Knowledge Problem. Theoria. 2021. Vol. 87, Iss. 3. P. 799–812.
30. Kotzee B. Virtue Epistemology and Clinical Medical Judgement. The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology, ed. by H. Battaly. New York: Routledge, 2019. P. 496‒507.
31. Kvanvig J.L. The Value of Knowledge and the Pursuit of Understanding. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2003.
32. Lahroodi R. Virtue Epistemology and Collective Epistemology. The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology, ed. by H. Battaly. New York: Routledge, 2019. P. 407‒419.
33. Montmarquet J. Epistemic Virtue and Doxastic Responsibility. Lancham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 1993.
34. Roberts R.C., Wood J. Intellectual Virtues: An Essay in Regulative Epistemology. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2007.
35. Sher G. Beyond Neutrality: Perfectionism and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1997.
36. Sher G. In Praise of Blame. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2005.
37. Slote M. Sentimentalist Virtue Epistemology: Beyond Responsibilism and Reliabilism. The Routledge Handbook of Virtue Epistemology, ed. by H. Battaly. New York: Routledge, 2019. P. 105‒114.
38. Sosa E. The Raft and the Pyramid. Midwest Studies in Philosophy. 1980. № 5. P. 3‒25.
39. The Epistemic Life of Groups, ed. by M.S. Brandy, M. Fricker. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 2016.
40. Zagzebski L. Virtues of the Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up