There are propositions that upon understanding them it seems that one can “just see” that they are necessary or impossible. A commonly discussed example is the claim that it is not possible for an object to be red and green all over at the same time. My purpose in this paper is to account for how it is that such beliefs are justified. I begin by criticizing a suggestion defended lately by Laurence BonJour and others. BonJour argues that because these (...) beliefs are necessarily true external factors are irrelevant to their epistemic status. This is how BonJour can defend a foundationalist account of the a priori while at the same time attacking foundationalism with respect to empirical knowledge. I argue that this view of the a priori is mistaken. External factors are relevant even in the case of those a priori beliefs it seems we can just see to be true. I defend an alternative account of the justification of such beliefs. I argue that these beliefs may be justified in virtue of their being the products of a basic belief-forming mechanism one has no reason to distrust. In particular, I argue that this approach can be employed to account for the non-inferential justification of a priori beliefs without falling prey to the line of objections BonJour lodges against other forms of foundationalism. (shrink)

In this paper I defend the Anselmian conception of God as a necessary being who is necessarily omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly good against arguments that attempt to show that we have good reason to think there are evil possible worlds in which either God does not exist or in which He lacks at least one of these attributes. I argue that the critics of Anselmianism have failed to provide any compelling reason to think such worlds are possible. The best the (...) critic of Anselmianism can achieve is a stand-off of competing modal intuitions. I conclude by suggesting some ways of resolving such a stand-off in favor of the Anselmian view. (shrink)

Claims concerning what is or is not possible abound in contemporary philosophy. The epistemology of such claims, however, remains largely unexplored. Anything imaginable is possible, we are told, with the proviso that imagination be governed by logic. Many who defend this methodology argue that logic frees us from recourse to some mysterious a priori faculty of intuition. Anything is possible so long as it does not contain a contradiction—and we don’t need intuition to tell us what is contradictory, just logic. (...) Logic is thus supposed to provide us with a non-mysterious, intuition-free, modal epistemology. The purpose of this paper is to argue that logic does not deliver on this promise. The argument proceeds along two fronts. First, I argue that logic is not sufficient for the task. Not only are there consistent but impossible propositions, there are even inconsistent propositions that are possible. Second, and more fundamentally, I question the epistemic independence of appeals to logical consistency. I will argue that in judging a proposition to be consistent we rely upon our intuitions concerning what is possible. In other words, our modal beliefs undergird our judgments about consistency and not vice-versa. (shrink)