Scotus's claim that syllogistic validity is known in the same self-evident way as first principles does not dissolve the regress but merely asserts it stops at two distinct points without principled justification.

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

No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

Principled justification(What the statement says Scotus lacks when he stops the regress at two points): A reason for believing something that is based on a clear rule or logical foundation, rather than just asserting it's true without explanation.
Regress (infinite regress)(as the philosophical problem being blocked): An endless chain of explanations where each explanation requires another explanation, trapping you in a loop that never reaches a final answer.
Scotus (John Duns Scotus)(The statement refers to his specific argument about knowledge): A medieval philosopher who developed arguments about how we know things, particularly about what counts as real knowledge versus just having beliefs.
Syllogistic validity(What Scotus claimed we know in a self-evident way): A way of checking if a logical argument is correct by following strict rules about how three related statements connect (like 'All humans are mortal, Socrates is human, therefore Socrates is mortal').

Based on where you are in your exploration