Roderick Chisholm Analysis

In this paper I will argue that Roderick Chisholm gives a correct solution to the problem of the criterion. The philosophical problem with criterion is that we cannot know the extent of knowledge without knowing criteria, and vice versa. Chisholm approaches the problem of criterion by saying that in order to know whether things are as they seem to be we must have a procedure for recognizing things that are true from things that are false. He then states that to know if the procedure is a good one, we have to know if it really recognizes things that are true from things that are false. From that we cannot know whether it really does succeed unless we already know what things are true and what things are false. His two questions are more easily comprehended by asking what do we know, and how do we know that. He believes in the idea of particularism, this means that he thinks that paricularists have the answer the first question therefore giving them access to determine the answer to the second question. Chusholm’s main point is to be able to answer the question “What is the proper method for deciding which are the good beliefs and which are the bad ones— which beliefs are genuine cases of knowledge and which beliefs are not?” (3).

Particularism can be scrutinized for having many objections. Philosopher’s struggle to recognize that we can deal with the problem only by asking the question. If philosophers recognize this then is easy for us to pretend it isn’t true. To understand this more clearly if you think about the second question alone “how do we know?”. The way that someone knows “how” he or she know is by using what he or she know to help guide them. Another objection to begs the question of “ how can we relate what is known ...

... middle of paper ...

...uestions then there would not be in the position to be confident that an proposed criterion of knowledge was correct. Chisholm advocates particularism because he believes that, unless one knows to begin with what ought to count as an instance of knowledge; any choice of a criterion is ungrounded and thus arbitrary.

In conclusion, I have given the details to Roderick Chisholms article entitled The Problem of the Criterion, in which he philosophizes possible solutions to the question itself. He posses two questions that he believes criterion is based on. Chusholms is a particularist, he believes he has the answer to what we know, and by having that answer he can determine how we know it. I objected his theory because I don’t think you can logically connect the two. I end on Chisholms ability to advocate for particularize as a solution to the problem of the criterion.