Pros And Cons Of Rationalism

Rationalism has had it's fair degree of criticism throughout it's history and some have been stronger than others. One of these objections highlighted is that rationalism is prone to ultimate disparities: contrasting a priori insights can and do lead to a stalemate. The second objection is that there must be some form of metajustification for a priori justification. While strong rationalism seems to run into difficulties with these objections, BonJour's moderate rationalism manages to deal with them. This essay will analyze both of these objections and highlight BonJour's effective moderate rationalist responses.

The first objection to rationalism raised in Chapter 5 is that rationalism is prone to ultimate disparities. This means that two

By not holding a priori justification to be infallible, the moderate rationalist can get away with this claim. The objection presupposes that the proposition being justified is held as necessary or evident is not a reason to believe that it is true (BonJour 145). The objection assumes that rational insight has no epistemic justification in itself. Moderate rationalism holds that a priori justification is entirely possible to justify in an atomistic, autonomous sense; each insight is dependent upon itself (BonJour 146). These intuitive reasons could be false but the falsity must be shown rather than assumed (BonJour 146). BonJour's moderate rationalism manages to avoid this objection.

BonJour's moderate rationalism manages to deal with ultimate disparities in insight and the problem of metajustification in a way that strong rationalism could not. By arguing a more modest approach, BonJour has the benefits of the rationalist position without any of its faults. BonJour's moderate rationalism breathes new life into a previously outdated philosophy and brings it into modern relevance and importance. Rationalist epistemology is no longer something of mere historical