Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Rationalist a priori knowledge does not require deductive... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Moore's account of a priori moral knowledge is intuitionist, not rationalist

    Rationalist a priori knowledge does not require deductive derivation from a single principle, but can proceed through conceptual analysis, as in Leibniz.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles derives a priori through conceptual analysis without appeal to a foundational axiom, showing such knowledge is possible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Conceptual analysis can reveal necessary truths by unpacking implicit content in concepts, grounding a priori knowledge without deductive chains from first principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rationalism requires only that a priori knowledge be justified independently of experience, not that it flow from a single deductive source.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Conceptual analysis presupposes standards for what counts as legitimate unpacking of concepts, but rationalism struggles to justify these standards non-circularly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without deriving knowledge from foundational principles, conceptual analysis risks generating merely analytic truths that don't constitute substantive a priori knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Leibniz himself appealed to the principle of sufficient reason and law of non-contradiction as foundational; his method covertly depends on such principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Conceptual analysis can reveal necessary truths by unpacking implicit content in...Conceptual analysis presupposes standards for what counts as legitimate unpackin...Leibniz himself appealed to the principle of sufficient reason and law of non-co...Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles derives a priori through conceptual analysi...
    +3 moreShow less
    Moore's account of a priori moral knowledge is intuitionist, not rationalistRationalism requires only that a priori knowledge be justified independently of ...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Without deriving knowledge from foundational principles, conceptual analysis ris...