Doxastic Obligations and the Traditional Definition of Knowledge
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 9688460 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Peter H Hess (University of Toronto, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1983 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Pages | 291-298 |
| Publication date | 1983-06-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Dialogue (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0012-2173 • E-ISSN: 1759-0949 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0012217300017996 |
| OpenAlex | W2146443088 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 2 |
In the sixth chapter of his Theory of Knowledge Roderick Chisholm refers to an example suggested by Alexius Meinong in order to show that the traditional definition of knowledge is in need of some modification. In this paper I should like to show that Chisholm's argument rests on a mistaken assumption as to what an individual's doxastic responsibilities are
Argument (complex analysis) · Business · Doxastic logic · Epistemology · Order (exchange) · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge · Medicine · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science
| Highly cited | No |
|---|