Warrant and Proper Function

Plantinga begins by examining the Gettier-type problems that internalist accounts of knowledge face. Having shown these difficulties, Plantinga is now able to set the stage for his externalist approach to warrant. This he does by explaining our design function: Any well formed human being who is in an epistemically congenial environment and whose intellectual faculties are in good working order will typically take for granted at least three things: that she has existed for some time, that she has had many thoughts and feelings, and that she is not a thought or feeling (Plantinga 50).He then examines three apparent weak points of externalism and show not only are they strong points, only a fool would challenge them: memory, other persons, and testimony. In the nature of the case we do not have basic beliefs about these three entities in the sense that evidentialism and classic foundationalism require (especially memory and testimony; solipsism has a host of problems beyond this). Throughout this defense we see the vindication of Thomas Reid.The book is quite difficult and technical, though. The sections on probability will lose all but the most formidable philosophers. While reading these chapters one is reminded of Eowyn’s comments to Merry before the battle: “Courage, Merry; it will soon be over.”He then gives a (mostly) wonderfully lucid discussion of coherentism, classic foundationalism, and Reidian foundationalism. Coherentism sees truth as a source of warrant in the existing relations of one’s beliefs: does a belief “cohere” and “mesh” in a larger noetic structure? Plantinga suggests this is inadequate because coherentism only tells us of the doxastic relationships between beliefs. Warrant, by contrast, needs far more, experience among other things (179). Classical foundationalism is wrong because it is self-referentially incoherent. It is not the case that the foundationalist claim (a belief is properly basic because it is either self-evident to me or immediately present to my senses) meets its own criteria: it is not self-evidently true nor is it available to the senses (182). This leaves us with Plantinga’s position: Reidian foundationalism. If a belief is formed in proper circumstances according to its proper cognitive design, it has warrant.Conclusion:The book began well and ended well. The middle sections were good, too, but likely only of interest to the most doughty of analytic philosophers. While I agree with Plantinga’s thesis, there are some shortcomings (but these can be excused because they have been treated in later works). The section on Reidian foundationalism, for example, while fundamentally sound, seemed to lack, forgive the pun, coherence in articulation. I kept seeing what RF was not in relation to classical foundationalism, but very little on what it was. The final chapters on naturalism are interesting, but have since been further refined in Plantinga’s later works.

Reading and rereading this book is a treat. Plantinga is not just giving you his conclusions. It is almost as if you are sitting with him while he is working through the issues at hand and explaining his reasoning to you. You read as he carefully considers evidence and counter-evidence. His tentative conclusions never seem to outstretch the evidence that he has marshaled thus far. The opportunity to observe one of the world's great living philosophers at work should not be missed.This book is the second in a trilogy. In the first volume, Warrant: The Current Debate, Plantinga carefully dealt with current theories in epistemology, specifically with the concept that is commonly referred to in the literature as justification. He showed how the other theories, though valuable in furthering the debate, are still lacking in specific ways.In this volume, Plantinga lays out his own theory. He shows how it relates to other theories, and how it better deals with (or fails to deal with) certain recurring epistemological problems. As a reader, I appreciate his sense of humor and most of all, his humility. He doesn't jump up and down, call you names, and try to convince you that he is right when he knows that problems still remain (Dennett and Dawkins could learn from this; doing so would enhance their credibility). He `fesses up to the problems that must still be overcome. In doing so, he is making a valuable contribution to a conversation that began with Plato in Theaetetus, and is setting the agenda for further research.

Plantinga, in this book, states in detail his reformed epistemology and what he takes to be the necessary and sufficient conditions for warrant(that which transforms a mere true belief into knowledge). This seems to be the most complete theory of knowledge to date, and I have yet to see a good counterexample. Furthermore, this monumental work shows that belief in God can absolutely be considered knowledge if held firmly enough. A Christian(or theist, in general) can rightly take their belief in God as basic(and properly basic at that).I cannot recommend this book enough!

Four quick things:1. I would echo much of what CML and Jacob wrote in their reviews.2. As someone without formal philosophy training, I found Plantinga an accessible read.3. My favorite parts are when he cites Thomas Reid.4. He did just enough in this book for me to order the third in his trilogy.

Disguided New thing low quality book is delivered.

Difficult to read, but simply amazing and helpful

Did the naturalism is in trouble? May be you think not, cause Darwin killed teleological argument and strengthen the naturalism, yes but it's no so simple. I think everybody need to read this even if you don't agree with supernaturalism metaphysic (to trully understand this expression you need to know a bit of comtempory metaphysic) but the question is here, even if you don't like it, and if you don't want your trust in science became a wishfull thinking you need to found a answer at the question Plantinga ask in this work. I don't want to say there are no answere for naturalism, there are, but to understand their value, you need undesrtand and aknowledge that the problem is important and it's what, with other thing, this book yield.For theist i think it's a must to read, to understand why and how you can understand your own faith rationnaly.