Philosophical Studies

, Volume 152, Issue 1, pp 17–39 | Cite as

Gupta’s gambit

  • Selim BerkerEmail author


After summarizing the essential details of Anil Gupta’s account of perceptual justification in his book Empiricism and Experience, I argue for three claims: (1) Gupta’s proposal is closer to rationalism than advertised; (2) there is a major lacuna in Gupta’s account of how convergence in light of experience yields absolute entitlements to form beliefs; and (3) Gupta has not adequately explained how ordinary courses of experience can lead to convergence on a commonsense view of the world.


Gupta Empiricism The given Experience Entitlement Interdependence 


  1. Audi, R. (2003). Contemporary modest foundationalism. In L. P. Pojman (Ed.), The theory of knowledge: Classical and contemporary readings (3rd ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Originally written for 1st edition of anthology.Google Scholar
  2. Broome, J. (1999). Normative requirements. Ratio, 12, 398–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Byrne, A., & Logue, H. (2008). Either/or. In A. Haddock & F. Macpherson (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, action, knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Cohen, S. (2002). Basic knowledge and the problem of easy knowledge. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 65, 309–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gupta, A. (1988–1989). Remarks on definitions and the concept of truth. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 89, 227–246.Google Scholar
  6. Gupta, A. (2006a). Empiricism and experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gupta, A. (2006b). Experience and knowledge. In T. Szabó Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Gupta, A. (2009). Replies to six critics. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 17, 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta, A., & Belnap, N. (1993). The revision theory of truth. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  10. Korsgaard, C. (1986). Skepticism about practical reason. Journal of Philosophy, 83, 5–25. (Reprinted in Creating the kingdom of ends by C. Korsgaard, 1996, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)Google Scholar
  11. McDowell, J. (2008). The disjunctive conception of experience as material for a transcendental argument. In A. Haddock & F. Macpherson (Eds.), Disjunctivism: Perception, action, knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Neta, R. (2009). Empiricism about experience. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 79, 482–489. Google Scholar
  13. Pryor, J. (2000). The skeptic and the dogmatist. Noûs, 34, 517–549.Google Scholar
  14. Schroeder, M. (2004). The scope of instrumental reason. Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 337–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. White, R. (2005). Epistemic permissiveness. Philosophical Perspectives, 19, 445–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. White, R. (2006). Problems for dogmatism. Philosophical Studies, 131, 525–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Williams, B. (1980). Internal and external reasons. In R. Harrison (Ed.), Rational action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Reprinted in Moral luck: Philosophical papers 1973-1980 by B. Williams, 1981, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)Google Scholar
  18. Williams, B. (1989). Internal reasons and the obscurity of blame. Logos, 10, 1–11. (Reprinted in Making sense of humanity, and other philosophical papers 1982-1993, B. Williams, 1995, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.) [Page references are to the reprint.]Google Scholar
  19. Williams, B. (2001). Postscript: Some further notes on internal and external reasons. In E. Millgram (Ed.), Varieties of practical reasoning. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Williamson, T. (2000). Knowledge and its limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations