Bøger udgivet af Public Philosophy Press

Alvin Plantinga, in Warrant: The Current Debate, notes thatthere is a long history in Anglo-American epistemology thattraces back to the classical internalist views of Rene Descartesand John Locke. Internalism is the view that an individualhas special access to that quantity or quality that makes truebelief into knowledge. This internalism, according to Plantinga, is motivated by deontology - or epistemic duty fulfillment.Closely connected with epistemic deontology is justification.Justification (or what Plantinga prefers to call 'warrant') is thatquantity or quality, enough of which makes true belief intoknowledge. Plantinga strongly objects to the deontologicalview of justification, claiming that no amount of duty fulfillmentcan get us to knowledge. He says justification is neithernecessary nor sufficient for warrant. In Warrant: The Current Debate (hereafter WCD) Plantingaexamines several versions of internalism - from Classicaland Post-Classical Chisholmian internalism, several forms ofcoherentism, to reliabilism - to show that none of these viewsget us to that quantity or quality enough of which makes truebelief into knowledge. Plantinga rejects all of these views, arguing that what is needed is a view that takes into account theproper function of our cognitive faculties. He then proposes togive a more accurate account of warrant in Warrant and ProperFunction (WPF). Plantinga's theory is that a belief is warrantedif it is formed by cognitive faculties functioning properly in anappropriate environment and according to a good design plan. The purpose of this book is to examine Plantinga's view ofcognitive malfunction in connection with his view of warrantand his rejection of the traditional view of justification. Iwill argue that the cognitive faculty of reason does not andcannot malfunction in the way that Plantinga either explicitlyor implicitly suggests. Consequently Plantinga's criticism ofjustification does not stand. I argue further that if reason isnot subject to malfunction and is thus reliable, the traditionalview of justification - having appropriate reasons for beliefin conjunction with true belief, possibly with the addition ofa fourth condition (the carefulness criterion) - will get us toknowledge.

Retrieving Knowledge: A Socratic Response to Skepticism is an exercise in retrieval philosophy, using philosophical principles from the past to address contemporary challenges. The book begins with first philosophy's search for a logos, a source of explanation of the order and rationality in the world, and the failure to ground the logos in being. The story picks up with the skepticism of the Sophists and Socrates' attempt to address the epistemological and metaphysical sources of the skepticism of his day in Plato's dialogue Theaetetus. Through this dialogue, we come to grapple with the definition of knowledge and the problems inherent with first philosophy's materialism. Knowledge is defined as a true belief with a logos (or an account). The theme of the logos is continued from first philosophy to Socrates and then to the Modern period of philosophy where we encounter a similar skepticism that Socrates addresses, a skepticism arising from metaphysical naturalism and empiricism. The moderate naturalism and empiricism of the Modern philosophers become the radical naturalism and empiricism of Nietzsche and the post-Nietzschean philosophers. The radical naturalism and empiricism of the post-Nietzschean philosophers lead to a contemporary negative nihilism carried out by the continental postmodernists, and a positive nihilism carried out by the Pragmatists and the "willing out beyond" of new values after Nietzsche's transvaluation of all values. Retrieval of the arguments of Socrates from the Theaetetus is used to address contemporary skepticism in the same way that Socrates addressed the skepticism of his day. Post-Nietzschean philosophy poses challenges beyond what Socrates faced; thus, a new direction for the future of philosophy is needed. The epilogue provides a blueprint for how the original search for the logos as the heart of philosophy may continue today.

The Journal of Public Philosophy is the official publication of the Public Philosophy Society. The goal of the Journal is to publish papers, essays, and book reviews in the mode of classical philosophy. We seek to know the basic truths that are foundational for the common good and for a just and civil society.The goal of public philosophy is to make the practice of philosophy more accessible and more relevant to students, scholars, and the broadly educated public. We hope to inspire young and old alike in the shared, rational pursuit of wisdom and in love of Being, Unity, the True, the Good, and the Beautiful.The Public Philosophy Society is a professional society, offering membership to students, scholars, and educated members of the public. For more information about joining the Society, visit our membership site: https://www.patreon.com/pubphisociety

This book explores some of the philosophical (epistemological) and theological precursors that made the transition from the pre-modern period to the modern possible, which was necessary for producing the categories of religion and science. It will at the same time examine the foundational basis for these categories and challenge its validity. There was a time when the ideas of religion and science were considered complementary. Theologians and the new 'scientists' viewed all truth as God's truth and were engaged in the mutual pursuit of the same end. But by the end of the nineteenth century, this relative harmony experienced an unparalleled breech that prevails to the present. What were the causes of this breach? How did the idea of religion end up as a distinct category separated from scientific inquiry and often considered at odds with it? The answers to these questions are in part due to an epistemological shift that took place in earlier centuries and subsequently paved the way for the nineteenth-century growth of naturalism (the philosophical perspective of modernity) to move into a dominant worldview. The question of knowledge and how it was to be qualified as knowledge became the paramount question with which rising modernity would wrestle. This new worldview needed rational justification and that justification was to be found in its understanding of knowledge. From the eighteenth century Enlightenment forward, the view that believed that it possessed knowledge and could demonstrate it, would prevail as the true light for human culture and, therefore, qualify it to define reality. The theistic worldview, through a series of epistemologically related intellectual revolutions, beginning most recently with the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation and extending through the early twentieth century, lost its exclusive position as the definer of reality for the Western world and was usurped by a naturalistic view. The claim to rational superiority by the new naturalistic view was resounding and appeared to be decisive. This work will challenge that claim by deconstructing this modern paradigm.

"There is nothing new under the sun", wrote King Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes (1:9). Thousands of years later, this is still the case as new thinkers trot out theories and ideas that are, in fact, old ideas with simply a different light shed on them. Modern apologists (meaning those who have entered the field since its revival about 60 years ago) owe most of their work to those who came before them. Occasionally, those in the past get remembered in a footnote or two, but what happens if a person who contributed to the field in the past was never acknowledged for their work in the first place? They become lost to history. This happened to many women in the field, not because women of the past were never interested in the intelligent side of the faith, but because they were denied a seat at the table of theological ideas for hundreds and hundreds of years, simply for being women. There have been many accounts throughout history of deep-thinking women of faith, yet until about ten years ago, the idea of women being Christian apologists was mostly unheard of. This is due to the fact that many in the past published anonymously, or under pseudonyms, or their works were simply ignored and not given the attention they deserved, simply because they were women in a field dominated by men.  Meet Susanna Newcome, who in 1728 became the first woman in history to publish a book on, and publicly engage in, the discipline of Christian Apologetics. Susanna showed the world that when it came to the mind, women were not the weaker sex, and instead were equally brilliant, as well as capable defenders of the historic Christian faith. She lived her life refusing to apologize for defending the truth and challenging the status quo of the day. She constantly kept those around her on their toes theologically, and openly critiqued any unbiblical ideology that crossed her path. She had a passion for truth, and her deep faith compelled her to challenge those who would lead astray the consciences of sincere but unlearned Christians. Susanna truly was a force to be reckoned with for the Kingdom of God and we can learn much today from the spiritual courage of this formidable woman of the past.  Her book, An Enquiry into the Evidence of the Christian Religion is not only an answer to the "Christian Deism" of its day but is a valuable work of Christian Apologetics in its own right. In the small volume, Susanna manages to discuss - with clarity and understanding that is astonishing for that time period - the laws of causality, contingency, one of the earliest versions of the modern Cosmological Argument, the Teleological Argument, the laws of thermodynamics, the unreasonableness of the Atheistic position, the argument from desire, the pursuit of happiness, the problem of evil, immortality (the case for the eternality of the soul), substance dualism, the case for special revelation, the value of and need for Christianity''s moral code, the disciples'' integrity and ability to be trusted as eyewitnesses, the case for miracles, the case for Jesus as the promised Messiah of the Bible, and lastly, the case for the Resurrection. At the time it was published, one of many glowing reviews stated, "We have no performance on the same subject that is so short, and at the same time so strong, perspicuous, and convincing. It would be no dishonor to the greatest Divine to be thought its author."