In a groundbreaking article appearing in the Journal of Philosophical Progress, an area philosopher claims to have revolutionized philosophical methods, defending a new "conclusions-first philosophy" otherwise known as "conclusions fundamentalism." The philosopher explained, "All I have really done is take two influential methodological advances to their inevitable logical conclusion." When asked to elaborate, the philosopher explained, "For most of history, it was assumed that we need to explain the nature of philosophical phenomena. For instance, when we look at Plato's dialogues, we see Socrates and his interlocutors giving arguments for conclusions about the nature of things like knowledge, justice, and virtue."
"However, all of this changed near the turn of the 21st century", the philosopher continued. "In his 1999 book What We Owe to Each Other, T.M. Scanlon argued that instead of trying to explain the nature of reasons for action, we should conclude that reasons are fundamental. This 'reasons-first' approach or 'reasons fundamentalism' has now become a dominant paradigm in action theory and moral philosophy. Interestingly, at around the same time, in his 2000 book Knowledge and Its Limits, Timothy Williamson argued that instead of trying to explain the nature of knowledge--for instance, in the traditional vein of giving necessary and sufficient conditions--we should instead believe that knowledge is primitive. Much like reasons-fundamentalism, this 'knowledge-first' approach has absolutely revolutionized the field."