Metaphysics, History, And Rational Justification
This article addresses Franklin Gamwell's critique of Alasdair MacIntyre's account of the nature of rational justification. I argue that MacIntyreans have good reasons to take seriously Gamwell's critique, and thus to reformulate MacIntyre's position to make clear that that posit...
Auteur principal: | |
---|---|
Type de support: | Électronique Article |
Langue: | Anglais |
Vérifier la disponibilité: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
Publié: |
Wiley-Blackwell
1999
|
Dans: |
Journal of religious ethics
Année: 1999, Volume: 27, Numéro: 2, Pages: 257-281 |
Sujets non-standardisés: | B
Ethics
B Transcendental B Tradition B Rationality B Metaphysics B Historicism |
Accès en ligne: |
Volltext (JSTOR) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
Résumé: | This article addresses Franklin Gamwell's critique of Alasdair MacIntyre's account of the nature of rational justification. I argue that MacIntyreans have good reasons to take seriously Gamwell's critique, and thus to reformulate MacIntyre's position to make clear that that position does not rest on a denial of all a priori claims. The author outlines such a reformulation, drawing heavily on MacIntyre's account (in his 1990 Aquinas Lecture) of the place of a priori claims within the development of rational traditions of inquiry. When thus rethought, MacIntyre's position grounds a twofold response to Gamwell's critique. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1467-9795 |
Contient: | Enthalten in: Journal of religious ethics
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/0384-9694.00017 |