All of the orthodoxies are positives, but this one I think cuts more at the joints if you made it negative.
I think of this one as “rejection of standpoint epistemology”, or perhaps even better: “standpoint epistemology is the exception, not than the rule”
I’ve talked to some philosophers about this, twice I’ve been told that SE isn’t a proper tradition recognized by epistemologists, that it’s more of an ideological cudgel that people use to signal allegiance but doesn’t have a free-standing account of what it “really is” that people agree on. But in the world you encounter people with intuitions about it, and these intuitions end up informing them a lot, so I think it’s useful to talk about even if it can’t be done at the standards of academic philosophy.
All of the orthodoxies are positives, but this one I think cuts more at the joints if you made it negative.
I think of this one as “rejection of standpoint epistemology”, or perhaps even better: “standpoint epistemology is the exception, not than the rule”
I’ve talked to some philosophers about this, twice I’ve been told that SE isn’t a proper tradition recognized by epistemologists, that it’s more of an ideological cudgel that people use to signal allegiance but doesn’t have a free-standing account of what it “really is” that people agree on. But in the world you encounter people with intuitions about it, and these intuitions end up informing them a lot, so I think it’s useful to talk about even if it can’t be done at the standards of academic philosophy.