|
" Externalism, Warrant, and the Question of Relativism "
Yoon Shin
| Document Type
|
:
|
AL
|
| Record Number
|
:
|
1081017
|
| Doc. No
|
:
|
LA124646
|
| Call No
|
:
|
10.1163/15700747-bja10006
|
| Language of Document
|
:
|
English
|
| Main Entry
|
:
|
Yoon Shin
|
| Title & Author
|
:
|
Externalism, Warrant, and the Question of Relativism [Article]\ Yoon Shin
|
| Publication Statement
|
:
|
Leiden: Brill
|
| Title of Periodical
|
:
|
Pneuma
|
| Date
|
:
|
2021
|
| Volume/ Issue Number
|
:
|
43/1
|
| Page No
|
:
|
94–114
|
| Abstract
|
:
|
According to James K.A. Smith, contemporary epistemology is overly focused on the noetic. Smith offers a counter-epistemology drawn from pentecostal spirituality that is narrative, affective, and embodied. Richard Davis and Paul Franks criticize this model and argue that it succumbs to story-relativism and arbitrariness. This article defends Smith against their critiques through three steps. First, it exposits Smith’s narrative, affective epistemology in order to identify areas that are relevant to their critiques. Second, it outlines and analyzes their critiques, reveals areas in which they fundamentally misunderstand Smith, and presents their commitment to epistemological objectivism. Finally, utilizing Alvin Plantinga’s externalist warrant model, it argues that Plantinga’s Reformed epistemology can assist Smith’s epistemology in consistent ways. If the following argument is successful, then Smith’s postmodern pentecostal epistemology can be reimagined as an externalist epistemology that overcomes the charges of relativism and arbitrariness. According to James K.A. Smith, contemporary epistemology is overly focused on the noetic. Smith offers a counter-epistemology drawn from pentecostal spirituality that is narrative, affective, and embodied. Richard Davis and Paul Franks criticize this model and argue that it succumbs to story-relativism and arbitrariness. This article defends Smith against their critiques through three steps. First, it exposits Smith’s narrative, affective epistemology in order to identify areas that are relevant to their critiques. Second, it outlines and analyzes their critiques, reveals areas in which they fundamentally misunderstand Smith, and presents their commitment to epistemological objectivism. Finally, utilizing Alvin Plantinga’s externalist warrant model, it argues that Plantinga’s Reformed epistemology can assist Smith’s epistemology in consistent ways. If the following argument is successful, then Smith’s postmodern pentecostal epistemology can be reimagined as an externalist epistemology that overcomes the charges of relativism and arbitrariness.
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
Alvin Plantinga
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
externalism
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
James K.A. Smith
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
justification
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
pentecostal epistemology
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
postmodernism
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
relativism
|
| Descriptor
|
:
|
warrant
|
| Location & Call number
|
:
|
10.1163/15700747-bja10006
|
| |