Due: Monday, October 23, 2006

 

Directions: As usual, the goal is to write about paper of 2 pages on one of the questions below. Read the material from the syllabus about “coherentism” (Section III-C). You should already have read the material about Cartesian foundationalism (Section III-B). We will probably start discussing coherentism on Friday, so we may go over some of the topics listed below before the assignment is due. If you are having a hard time picking a topic, I suggest trying #2 or #4.

 

1) Defend Cartesian Foundationalism from one of the objections we discussed. (This includes the objection based on “The Frying Pan” example.)

 

2) Principle (CT3), p. 65 of the text, states a version of coherentism. It makes use of the idea of the “coherence value” of a system of beliefs. In the paragraph before (CT3) is stated, it says that the account given of the coherence value of a system is not complete. If you have an idea about how to add to the explanation of coherence value, explain your idea. In other words, improve upon the explanation given in the text.

 

3) In the paragraph beginning near the bottom of p. 65 it says that there are “vexing details that need to be worked out” in order to make (CT3) work. If you think that you can help out coherentists so that they can deal with one or more of the questions raised in the next couple of paragraphs, explain your idea.

 

4) In his essay in the anthology (pp. 387-401), Laurence BonJour defends coherentism. At one point he says that there are “two importantly different levels at which issues of empirical justification can be raised.”(p. 391) What are these two levels? Does distinguishing these two levels help to support coherentism?

 

5) Does the version of coherentism that BonJour defends in his essays avoid any of the problems for coherentism that are raised in the text?

 

6) Defend coherentism from one of the objections discussed in the text or in class. You can do this by arguing that the objection fails as it was presented or by formulating a version of coherentism that avoids the objection.

 

7) Present a new objection to coherentism.