• Uncategorized

Disagreements

Steadfast View was also motivated by the refusal of equal weight. If your colleague`s opinion on (P) doesn`t matter as much as your own opinion, you may not need to doxical conciliation. While most people think it`s not plausible that your own opinion can count more simply because it`s yours, a closer and more plausible defense has just appealed to you for self-confidence. Enoch (2010), Foley (2001), Pasnau (2015), Schafer (2015), Wedgwood (2007; 2010) and Zagzebski (2012) launched a call for self-confidence to respond to disagreements between peers. Foley emphasizes the essential and indispensable role of the first personal thought. Applying to cases of disagreement, Foley states: “I have the right to make conflict the competences, procedures and opinions in which I rely, even if those skills, procedures and opinions are precisely those that are questioned by others” (2001, 79). Similarly, Wedgwood argues that it is rational to have some kind of egocentric bias – a fundamental confidence in one`s own abilities and mental states. Because of this, peer-to-peer differences have a kind of symmetry from the third-person perspective, but none of the parties adopt this perspective. On the contrary, each party of disagreement has a perspective of me that it is rational to privilege itself. Self-confidence is fundamental and the confidence you need to put into your abilities and states simply cannot be given to anyone else.

You may also like...