A Defense of Ethnocentric Justification

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyze the arguments that Kalpokas presents to reject Rorty's conception of justification. I defend the opposite view: justification and reform are not logically independent of the communitarian consensus. I argue that the view sustained becomes, when we think of it as a pragmatic conception, incoherent in regard to the historicity of the standards of justification as well as to the possibility of beholding a spatial and temporal determined point of view. I uphold, as well, that an ethnocentric conception of justification can include a rational account of the change and reform of our epistemic criteria, answering to the objection presented by Kalpokas.