普兰丁格对邦杰整体联贯主义的批判

Plantinga's Criticism on Bon Jour's Coherentism

"辩护"在传统知识论中是一个核心概念。以邦杰为代表的整体联贯主义者认为,一个信念的辩护取决于它所在的整个信念体系的联贯。而普兰丁格则认为,整体联贯主义必须预设元信念的辩护,即"元辩护"问题,故而是不能接受的。为此,普兰丁格从认知原则、义务论立场和元辩护问题等多个方面对邦杰的观点进行了批判,并力主用"保证"来代替"辩护"。通过这场争辩,我们可以对知识论中的"辩护困境"有更深层次的理解与把握。

Justification plays a core role in epistemology. BonJour holds the view that the justification of a belief depends on the whole coherence of members in a system of beliefs. On the contrary, Plantinga thinks metajustification, that is, the justification for metabeliefs, should be the fatal problem for BonJour＇s view. So Plantinga criticizes Bon.lour＇s coherentism from three aspects： epistemic principles, deontological standpoints and metajustifcation, and then he proposes that we should replace justification by warrant. The debate between the two philosophers can make us get better and deeper understandings on the dilemma of justification.