tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post8458973745799652937..comments2022-08-22T19:56:26.776-05:00Comments on Ben Wallis’s counter-apologetics blog: Alexander Pruss on Self-evidence and the PSRBen Wallishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-66562763247881612412010-12-10T07:14:33.551-06:002010-12-10T07:14:33.551-06:00Mr. Pruss,
I see that on p190 of your book, you g...Mr. Pruss,<br /><br />I see that on p190 of your book, you give the following definition:<br /><br /><i>A proposition </i>p<i> is self-evident if, necessarily, anyone who understands it correctly understands it to be true, and it is possible for someone to understand it.</i><br /><br />If you take the PSR to be self-evident, then since neither myself nor certain associates of mine regard it as true, it follows immediately that we do not understand the PSR. But this puts a defender of the PSR in a curious position: No longer do we require a defense of the PSR, as we typically imagine such defenses. Instead we require a <i>statement</i> of the PSR which adequately communicates its content.<br /><br />Now, I don't mean to suggest that the burden rests entirely on the PSR advocate. Certainly it is my job as well to do my utmost to try to understand the PSR as you envision it. However, the problem, on your view, seems to be a breakdown in communication rather than a dispute over whether or not the PSR is true, and both sides should recognize this. For you to persuade me, it is quite enough on your view to show me what the PSR is all about. If you can do that, then its truth will be self-evident in the way you define, and it shall require no further defense.<br /><br />In the mean time, we should recognize that the self-evidence of the PSR, as you define it, is not itself a reason to accept the PSR, but only a proposed partial explanation for why it is we might happen to do so. Indeed, it is akin to saying that you can't help but take the PSR to be true, and that even if it were false, it would not be in your power to reject it, no matter what combination of reason and evidence should be brought against it. Given this position, you needn't hesitate to try to consider the possibility that you are mistaken. For if we can persuade you that the PSR is false, even for just a moment, then, provided your slip is not caused by a sudden deficiency in understanding (perhaps brought on by considering too seriously my wacky ideas), we shall have shown that the PSR as you accept it is not self-evident after all.<br /><br />So, again, the supposed self-evidence of the PSR ought not be mistaken for epistemic justification, nor should it pose any barrier to doubt; whatever intuitions we have about the PSR need not be trusted. As long as we can agree on these points, I am satisfied.<br /><br />Thanks again for your response! Please note that I will continue to read, time permitting, your thoughts on self-evidence, in case you think I have misunderstood that as well. Of course, I hope you consider my own points.<br /><br />--BenBen Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-55614156720943949992010-12-09T17:32:40.389-06:002010-12-09T17:32:40.389-06:00Mr. Pruss,
Hey, thanks! I will definitely check ...Mr. Pruss,<br /><br />Hey, thanks! I will definitely check that out soon. I also appreciate you taking the time to respond, since I know you must be busy. (I have to wonder how you heard about my blog though... ?)<br /><br />In any case, I'll see about posting a follow-up to this once I've read the relevant sections of your book. If Google doesn't have it I can almost certainly get it through interlibrary loan.<br /><br />Thanks again!<br /><br />--BenBen Wallishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00131358613835119782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-24460030019075299742010-12-08T13:58:27.652-06:002010-12-08T13:58:27.652-06:00Have a look at my book on the PSR. You'll fin...Have a look at <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Principle-Sufficient-Reason-Reassessment-Philosophy/dp/0521184398" rel="nofollow">my book on the PSR</a>. You'll find a chapter on self-evidence, whose first section is helpfully entitled "A definition of self-evidence", and whose ninth section is entitled "What self-evidence could be". :-) The Amazon and Google Books previews might allow you to view those sections if the book isn't in your library.Alexander R Prusshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05989277655934827117noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4856596194106820549.post-11393750714747032372010-11-26T01:41:03.596-06:002010-11-26T01:41:03.596-06:00Hey, you know you can go to Alexander Pruss's ...Hey, you know you can go to Alexander Pruss's blog and ask him what he means by the term "self-evident". In fact, you could show him your post and he'll be likely to respond to it!<br /><br />It's important you have the same concept of self-evident and PSR as Pruss does -- as Pruss says about Hume, "As a result, it is far from clear to me that Hume has even grasped the PSR in the sense which I assign to it. And if not, then his failure to see it as self-evident is irrelevant. "<br /><br />I think you are wrong to say, "In contrast, I am mistaken that the PSR is not self-evident to Mr. Pruss, because even though I lack his intuition, I should nevertheless acknowledge that, if only I shared the intuition, then I too would be epistemically justified in trusting it."<br /><br />Pruss was clear that those who say that the PSR is not self-evident, while having an improper grasp of the PSR, would make the the statement [PSR not being self-evident] irrelevant. What's important is not sharing Pruss's intuition, rather it's sharing his definition/concept of PSR. If you don't share his definition/concept of PSR, then your "failure to see it as self-evident is irrelevant."<br /><br />But, why take my word, when you can go straight to the source and ask Pruss himself. I'd go to his post (even though it's a couple years old, Pruss still replies to comments on old posts) about his piece that appeared in the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology.<br /><br />http://alexanderpruss.blogspot.com/2008/05/leibnizian-cosmological-arguments.html<br /><br />Hopefully, he'll respond back!Jarrett Cooperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17191046219215006345noreply@blogger.com