Skip to main content
Log in

On Reflective Knowledge: replies to Battaly and Reed

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This article is a reply to Baron Reed and Heather Battaly, two critics in a book symposium on my Reflective Knowledge. The reply to Reed concerns the main content and structure of Descartes’s epistemology. The reply to Battaly concerns how best to deal with epistemic circularity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Descartes, R. (1984). The philosophical writings of Descartes (Vol. II) (J. Cottingham, R. Stoothoff, & D. Murdoch, Trans.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Sosa E. (2009) Reflective knowledge. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sosa, E. (2011a). Descartes and virtue epistemology. In K. Clark & M. Rea (Eds.), Science, religion, and metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).

  • Sosa, E. (2011b). Descartes’s epistemology. In D. Dodd, C. Wright, & E. Zardini (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on perceptual justification and skepticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press (forthcoming).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ernest Sosa.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sosa, E. On Reflective Knowledge: replies to Battaly and Reed. Synthese 188, 309–321 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9920-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-011-9920-x

Keywords

Navigation