Knowledge

An overview is offered of Wittgenstein's groundbreaking discussion of knowledge and certainty, especially in his final notebooks, published as On Certainty. The main interpretative readings of On Certainty are discussed, especially a non-propositional/non-epistemic interpretation and a variety of propositional and/or epistemic interpretations. Surveys are offered of the readings of On Certainty presented by such figures as Annalisa Coliva, John Greco, Danièle Moyal-Sharrock, Duncan Pritchard, Genia Schönbaumsfeld, P. F. Strawson, MichaelWilliams, and CrispinWright. This Element demonstrates how On Certainty has been especially (...) groundbreaking for epistemology with regard to its treatment of the problem of radical scepticism. (shrink)

El presente artículo recupera las principales líneas de investigación de mi Trabajo Final de Licenciatura en Filosofía. Mi investigación parte del famoso debate filosófico entre intelectualistas y anti-intelectualistas sobre la naturaleza de nuestras habilidades prácticas básicas y los requisitos y capacidades que están involucrados en el despliegue de las mismas. El objetivo del presente artículo es examinar y evaluar la potencialidad de una explicación conceptualista moderada a la hora de dar cuenta de nuestra percepción y del ejercicio de nuestras habilidades (...) prácticas básicas. Para ello, he considerado necesario ofrecer una reconstrucción crítica de las posiciones que defienden Dreyfus, como representante del anti-intelectualismo, y McDowell, como representante del intelectualismo, acerca de la naturaleza de nuestras habilidades para actuar fluida y exitosamente en el entorno. Luego, introduciré una crítica bajo el nombre “la paradoja del experto”, con el propósito de señalar ciertos problemas que conlleva asumir la posición anti-intelectualista radical de Dreyfus. Por último, con la motivación de encontrar una explicación alternativa, recurriré a la ya clásica noción de affordances propuesta por Gibson (1979) y, siguiendo una interpretación conceptualista de las affordances, intentaré responder a la paradoja mencionada. (shrink)

Los aportes de G. Ryle a la teoría del conocimiento motivaron un principal interés en el estudio del saber-cómo. La discusión filosófica al respecto atraviesa una gran variedad de asuntos como, por ejemplo, cuál es la distinción y la relación entre el saber-cómo y el saber que —también llamado saber teórico—; cuál es la relación entre el saber-cómo y el conocimiento práctico: en qué consiste aprender un saber-cómo; qué requisitos cognitivos debe cumplir un agente para ejercer un saber-cómo; cuál es (...) el grado de generalidad que nos permite; cuál es su relación con el lenguaje; cuál es el rol de la atención y la consciencia en los casos de saber-cómo; entre otros. Como usualmente sucede en filosofía, son muchas las preguntas y los intentos por dar una explicación consistente del fenómeno, no obstante, los debates continúan más vigentes que nunca. En el presente trabajo evalúo los aportes de W. Sellars para comprender la naturaleza del saber-cómo. En particular, me concentro en la noción de sistema representacional proposicional que propone y su relación con las reglas de acción sellarsianas (ought to do). Luego, sostengo que dicha relación resulta de especial interés a la hora de explicar el fenómeno del saber-cómo, ya que nos ilumina una caracterización relevante sobre qué es lo que hace el agente cuando actúa habilidosamente. (shrink)

This article explores the hypothesis that synchronicity—often dismissed as psychological coincidence—can be rigorously interpreted as a phase collapse of semantic superposition, culminating in an epistemic singularity. Departing from classical models, we propose that the observer functions as a recursive, programmable interface whose engagement with the environment operates through phase coherence and reversibility. At moments of synchronicity, non-causal semantic configurations undergo sudden stabilization, enabling a mode of knowing that transcends empirical validation. Measurement is reframed as resonance between external structures and the (...) observer’s internal topology. Synchronicity becomes not a mere coincidence, but a localized collapse of interpretive potential, activated through the intrinsic phase of attention or belief. This framework challenges the foundations of epistemology and proposes a novel model for quantum measurement and scientific cognition. Meaning is constituted not through symbolic processing alone, but through structurally entangled participation—at the edge of what can be known and what can be measured. (shrink)

This paper offers a structural reinterpretation of Jungian synchronicity as a topological and epistemic phenomenon, rather than a psychological anomaly. We argue that meaningful coincidence can be modeled as a form of phase-aligned collapse within a coherence manifold, where causal transmission is replaced by structural resonance. Drawing on parallels with quantum measurement and the Participatory Anthropic Principle, we propose that meaning emerges through observer participation in topologically organized fields of relational significance. Synchronicity thus marks not a violation of causality but (...) a point of epistemic convergence—a non-causal collapse of latent order into intelligible form. This framework advances a post-causal epistemology, wherein coherence supplants causation as the organizing principle of meaning. (shrink)

This essay goes back in time a bit and discusses distinctions between “true knowledge” (of the few) and other, “untrue” knowledge (of the many). From this perspective it seems that “post-truth” may be a recent concept in terms of its form, i.e., the name, but it is not so new in terms of its content, the phenomenon, the thing itself.

Scepticism essentially posits that knowledge is impossible, varying depending on the philosopher and context. One type of scepticism presupposes the 'principle of epistemic closure' (PEC), which states that if any epistemic subject knows a proposition P and knows that P implies Q, then that subject knows Q. According to this sceptical argument, one does not know a proposition if she does not know one of its contrasting consequences. Dretske countered this argument by rejecting PEC and proposed the theory of relevant (...) alternatives as an alternative criterion for truth, addressing its absence in his epistemology. This essay aims to analyse Dretske's objection to this sceptical argument and his proposal of a theory of relevant alternatives. (shrink)

This article emerged from a human-AI dialogue refining Simondonian concepts. My objective was also to check how modern scientific concepts such as time emergence, theory of dynamic systems, probabilistic attractors, Qbism ... , could reinforce the Simondon ontological background. An annex provides an illustration of how OK-individuation compares to the Simondon's one. As a subproduct this paper gives an illustration of an human-AI productive exchange.

There are cases in which an agent neither knows that p nor is ignorant of the fact that p. Every theory of knowledge, T, faces a dilemma in light of such cases: either T is too strong to explain the absence of factual ignorance in such cases, or T is too weak to explain the absence of knowledge in such cases. The solution is to embrace the first horn of the dilemma and to augment one’s theory of knowledge with an (...) account of factual awareness that can explain why factual ignorance is absent in these cases. This paper develops a new, ignorance-based argument for the idea that factual awareness is a more general state of which knowledge is but one instance. It also provides further reasons to identify factual ignorance with the absence of factual awareness. (shrink)

Detendo-se na angústia enquanto existência como possibilidade, o Prof. Luiz Carlos Mariano Da Rosa mostra que, tal qual em seu emergir caracteriza-se como aquilo que guarda condição de estranheza, Kierkegaard assinala que a sua emergência consiste em um sentimento de risco que em condição de imanência se impõe a toda possibilidade como tal enquanto sentimento puro da possibilidade em face da liberdade como determinação fundamental do devir e o caráter contingente do possível, o que implica a realidade da liberdade enquanto (...) possibilidade para a possibilidade, que encerra dois caminhos, a saber, o suicídio ou a fé. Dessa forma, baseado no princípio fenomenológico-ontológico-existencial, o artigo sublinha que Heidegger assinala que não é senão a angústia que instaura e antes inaugura o abrir o mundo como mundo, a qual, longe de se deter em angústia-com, implica também angústia-por que, remetendo a pre-sença para aquilo pelo que a angústia se angustia, a saber, o seu próprio poder-ser-no-mundo. E, finalizando, o artigo destaca que, tendo como princípio teórico-conceitual a perspectiva de que a liberdade é o ser da consciência, Sartre se detém na questão se há consciência enquanto consciência de liberdade, como pressuposto, e qual é a forma desta consciência, assinalando que, constituindo-se angústia o locus que possibilita ao existente humano a consciência de sua liberdade, não é senão o que perfaz o modus essendi da liberdade como consciência de ser. (shrink)

Our interest in understanding belief stems partly from our being creatures who think. However, the term ‘belief’ is used to refer to many states: from the fully conscious rational state that partly constitutes knowledge to the fanciful states of alarm clocks. Which of the many ‘belief’ states must a theory of belief be answerable to? This is the scope question. I begin my answer with a reply to a recent argument that belief is invariably weak, i.e., that the evidential standards (...) that are required for belief are low. Although one state we refer to using the term ‘belief’ fits this profile, other ‘belief’ states do not. Crucially, when ‘belief’ is heard in a weak sense, it attributes a state that only a rational creature can be in. I will use this observation as a starting point for an argument that the study of (our) belief should not be constrained by the requirement that the illuminated state be held in common with any non‐rational being. This lends support to the Transformative Theory of Rationality, according to which rationality does not merely add powers or complexity to the animal mind, but transforms it into a different kind of mind altogether. (shrink)

Studies within mathematics education have shown the existence of a so-called “mathematics anxiety” among secondary and high school students as a global phenomenon and have related it to various social and psychological aspects of the processes of teaching and learning mathematics, which are responsible for the understanding of mathematics. Current research project aims at crystallizing a primary conceptual and theoretical framework necessary for the application of contributions of philosophy of mathematics and of science and epistemology of mathematics in mathematics education (...) from an epistemological perspective. It argues for and discusses applicability of the general principle that teaching about mathematics along with traditionally teaching formal mathematics and ‘doing’ mathematics does not render the process more difficult, but rather, this approach enhances mathematics education, with effects on the mathematics anxiety. -/- . (shrink)

“I promise to mow your lawn, but I don’t know whether I will.” Call promises of this form “Moorean,” based on their resemblance to Moore’s paradox. Moorean promises sound absurd. But why? In the literature on assertion, many have used Moore’s paradox to motivate a knowledge norm of assertion. I put forward an analogous norm on promising, according to which one should only make a promise if one knows that one will fulfill it. A knowledge norm explains why Moorean promises (...) are absurd, accounts for a variety of linguistic data, and sheds light on how promises generate obligations. (shrink)

Cosmovision ni neno ambalo linapaswa kumaanisha seti ya misingi ambayo huibuka uelewa wa kimfumo wa Ulimwengu, sehemu zake kama maisha, ulimwengu tunaoishi, asili, hali ya mwanadamu, na uhusiano wao. Kwa hivyo, ni uwanja wa falsafa ya uchanganuzi inayolishwa na sayansi, ambayo lengo lake ni maarifa haya yaliyojumlishwa na endelevu ya mantiki juu ya kila kitu tulicho nacho na kilichomo, ambacho kinatuzunguka, na kinachohusiana nasi kwa njia yoyote. Ni kitu cha zamani kama mawazo ya mwanadamu, na, pamoja na kutumia vipengele vya (...) kosmolojia ya kisayansi, inajumuisha kila kitu katika falsafa na sayansi ambacho kinarejelea ulimwengu na maisha. Cosmovision si seti ya mawazo, dhahania, na mawazo bali ni mfumo unaozingatia uchunguzi, uchambuzi, ushahidi na maonyesho. Hakuna cosmovision inayonuia kufafanua, kuanzisha, au kupendekeza lakini kuelewa tu, kuchanganua na kufasiri. Kila mmoja wetu hujenga na kusafirisha ulimwengu wake katika maisha yote, bila kuanzisha fomu, kama msingi wa mawazo na tabia zetu. (shrink)

This paper critically examines Coliva and Palmira’s characterization of the disagreement between Humean skeptics and hinge epistemologists as a distinctive kind of conceptual disagreement. Humean skepticism requires evidential justification for all rational beliefs, presenting a narrower conception of rationality. This contrasts with constitutivist hinge epistemology, which posits that our unwarranted hinge propositions — the basic certainties which makes the justifications for ordinary empirical propositions possible — are constitutive of the concept of epistemic rationality, thus they are also rationally accepted by (...) us. Coliva and Palmira (2020, 2021) argue that this divergence reflects a conceptual disagreement over the conception of epistemic rationality, implying a dispute about how the concept of epistemic rationality should be understood. Their strategy is two-fold: they first mentioned Stroud’s (2019) categorization of conceptual disagreement, but contended that the disagreement between Humean skeptics and hinge epistemologists represents a novel kind of conceptual disagreement that Stroud’s categorization cannot encompass. They suggest this new framing allows for a rational resolution of the disagreement; second, they argue that the extended conception of rationality is superior because it coherently accounts for the rationality of our epistemic practices. However, I contend that both parts of their two-fold strategy fail. Even if the disagreement is conceptual, it can be understood as a type of disagreement within Stroud’s categorization; therefore, it does not represent a novel type of disagreement. Additionally, I argue that they misinterpret the skeptic’s stance. Skeptics do not assume that our epistemic practices are rational; rather, they doubt the rationality of these practices and the possibility of knowledge. Therefore, for a skeptic, there is no advantage from a conceptual proposal that makes a coherent account of the alleged rationality of our epistemic practices. (shrink)

This chapter from Michel Serres’s comprehensive study on Leibniz—"The System of Leibniz and its Mathematical Models [Le système de Leibniz et ses modèles mathématiques]"—examines Leibniz’s epistemological framework. This framework, which Leibniz developed for a large part in his “Meditations on Knowledge, Truth, and Ideas [Meditationes de cognitione, veritate et ideis],” is pitched against Descartes’s "Meditations on First Philosophy [Meditationes de Prima Philosophia]" and the method of systematic doubt developed therein. While Descartes rejects any knowledge with the slightest possibility of falsehood, (...) Leibniz accepts knowledge with even a minimal degree of truth. Leibniz’s approach involves a progressive genesis of truth through a series of filters, each further refining knowledge. This process is intrinsically linked to infinitism and combinatorics, allowing for a gradual differentiation of the distinct from the indistinct. The filters are applied sequentially, with each filter proceeding through its own oppositions, resulting in a spectrum of knowledge ranging from obscure to clear, confused to distinct, inadequate to adequate, and symbolic to intuitive. This framework facilitates pluralism within rationalism that proceeds through evolving or regional truths. The filters overlap, and only the final stage of knowledge is devoid of mixture. Leibniz’s epistemology is non-Cartesian, as it relativizes truth and falsehood at each stage of the filtering process. It also accounts for the limitations of sensory perception, attributing them to the imperfection of the human mind in its current state. (Translated by Martijn Boven). (shrink)

COMPLETE OBJECTIVITY IS UNATTAINABLE: Language structures our perception of reality. Words define and limit thought, shaping what is expressible or even thinkable. Since the link between words and meanings is socially constructed, language carries hidden constraints that influence how we interpret the world. Memory, too, is fluid rather than a fixed archive. Each recollection reshapes past events, prioritizing coherence over accuracy. Our senses and cognition evolved for survival, not for discovering absolute truth. Our „truth“ is never final but an evolving (...) approximation. The perception of reality is inherently selective. Evolution shaped our brains and senses to process only survival-relevant information, filtering overwhelming complexity into simplified, actionable categories. Cognitive biases further streamline decision-making but distort reality by reinforcing preexisting beliefs. These are not errors but evolved shortcuts. INVISIBLE COLLECTIVE FORCES: Memplexes, Pendulums, Discourses, and Animistic Spirits describe the same underlying phenomenon — external, self-replicating forces that shape human thought and behavior. They function like “software agents,” gaining influence by capturing collective attention and reinforcing dominant narratives. As they sustain themselves through cultural and social energy, they guide behavior, beliefs, and norms without conscious recognition. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: AI, primarily based on language models, is emerging as a new vehicle for idea propagation. As AI evolves, it may not only spread but also generate novel „memplexes,” accelerating cultural and intellectual shifts at an unprecedented pace. However, despite its computational sophistication, AI remains constrained by its training data, programming, and structural limitations. (shrink)

In his new book, La société automatique, Bernard Stiegler departs from a philosophical tradition that opposes autonomy and automatization so as to position automatization at the core of biological, social, and technical forms of life. Responding to the rise of the digital—as the increasing automatization of processes of selection through computational means—Stiegler’s project challenges us to recognize contemporary life as automatic. This shift in approach inevitably recalibrates the ontogenetic grounds of contemporary culture, and necessitates a reconsideration of sociocultural practices from (...) the standpoint of the digital modes of algorithmic existence that are enacted within our midst. -/- Anaïs Nony: Thank you very much, Bernard Stiegler, for having me in Paris today, in your Institute for Research and Innovation. You just finished a new book titled La société automatique. Can you explain what you mean by “automatic society,” and especially that element of it that refers to the self, autos (αὐτός) in Greek? What does it mean to apply this concept to the social order? -/- Bernard Stiegler: Thank you for these questions. First I must say that what I call automatic society is produced by the technology of automatism that is digital technology. (shrink)

This paper examines the nature of the specific grasp involved in moral understanding. After discussing Hills's ability account of that central component of moral understanding in light of problematic cases, I argue that moral grasp is best conceived of as a type of knowledge that is grounded in a subject's moral appreciation. I then show how and why the relevant notion of moral appreciation is connected to moral virtues and to one's affective and motivational engagement with moral reasons. Finally, I (...) discuss the connection between moral appreciation and a subject's ability to offer moral explanations in relation to the debate between pessimists and optimists about moral understanding's testimonial transmission. (shrink)

Sanford Goldberg has recently proposed a solution to the swamping problem for process reliabilist truth-monism (PRTM). In short, he argues that reliably formed true beliefs have a property he calls the ‘modal reliability property’, the epistemic value of which is explained in terms of the value of true belief but is not swamped by it. He offers two arguments to this effect. I claim that both of his arguments are valid, but they employ premisses the truth of which needs to (...) be explained. However, it is not obvious how a proponent of PRTM could explain them without abandoning her preferred order of explanation. I do not argue that it is impossible in principle to discharge this burden. However, I do claim that Goldberg has yet to show us that it is possible. The result is that the swamping problem is no less problematic for PRTM than it was previously. (shrink)

Tanto Scheler como Polo aceptan la estructura acto-objeto para explicar el conocimiento intelectual. Pero no la entienden del mismo modo. Scheler defiende la prioridad del objeto (el objeto se da) y Polo la del acto (la operación presenta el objeto). Para Scheler el acto es intencional y para Polo lo es el objeto. Ambos detectan que esta estructura tiene un límite, porque el acto no es nunca el objeto. -/- Both Scheler and Polo use the act-object structure to explain the (...) intelectual knowledge. Nevertheless, they don’t understand this structure on the same way. Scheler holds the priority of the object (the object is given by itself) and Polo on his behalf holds the priority of the act (the operation presentates the object). For Scheler the act is intentional, but for Polo which is intentional is the object. Both observe that this structure has a limit, because the act is never the object. (shrink)

The reliability of one´s memory is far from certain. Have you ever misplaced an item, forgotten a name or gotten the date wrong? Everyday situations can introduce doubt about our memorial faculties. This raises epistemological questions: Can we trust our memory as a source of knowledge? If memory is fallible, how can we justify beliefs that depend on it? Andrew Moon` global skeptical argument about memory states that we lack knowledge or warrant when it comes to trusting our memory as (...) a reliable faculty. His argument is the following: I. I can know a proposition on the basis of a faculty only if I know that faculty is reliable. II. I cannot know that my memory is reliable. III. Therefore, I cannot know a proposition on the basis of my memory. Moon’s stance on premise I. is that any reasoning to support the conclusion that one’s memory is reliable will either result in epistemic circularity or fail to sufficiently justify the belief. While he does offer a positive response to circularity by distinguishing between declarative and non-declarative memory, his solution primarily applies to non-declarative memory, such as remembering of how to ride a bike. Within the scope of this text, however, I will focus exclusively on declarative memory, episodic, as in remembering walking to the grocery store, in thought experiments and semantic, as in deriving general conclusions like "going to the grocery store involves leaving home", in deriving conclusions. Moon introduces a refinement to premise I. by suggesting that unless we encounter strong reasons to doubt the reliability of memory, we can trust it as a source of knowledge. This condition is meant to avoid over-intellectualization by not requiring explicit knowledge of memory’s reliability. The text is structured into three sections. In Section A, I begin by introducing Memory-Skepticism. We will build on Moon´s skeptical argument and consider whether we can maintain confidence in our memorial faculties by drawing on Moore’s distinction between epistemic and dialectical issues. I will further demonstrate how an inference to the best explanation can help overcome skeptical challenges. Turning to premise II., Moon argues that knowing whether memory is reliable involves reasoning in its favor. Even if we consider memory to be non-inferential in nature, that is, basic and independent of other beliefs, explaining concepts and theories still requires background knowledge, which, in turn, relies on memory. Regardless of memory´s innate reliability, we are still left with the need of avoiding either epistemic circularity or insufficient justification. However, not all circularity is problematic. Moon introduces the concept of benign circularity, which refers to circular reasoning that does not undermine a belief’s warrant. For instance, if I have no reason to doubt the reliability of my memory, I can use it to recall past experiences and form the belief that my memory is reliable. In Section B, I will build on this idea by starting with Foundationalism and develop Memory-Reliabilism as a contender theory for understanding the reliability of memory. I will try to flesh out the theory in detail. Finally, in Section C, I will turn to Memory-Knowledge and explore how memory can function as a source of knowledge. By drawing on Moon´s cases about forgotten evidence and stored beliefs, we will formulate a memory-related Gettier Case and analyze it for its justification and evidence. By focusing on sensitivity and E=K, I hope to expand on Moon´s approach to memory-skepticism. To narrow the focus of this text, we will consider memory to be non-inferential in nature. That is, memory-based beliefs are justified independently of any inferential relations to other beliefs. The act of remembering itself acts as a source of immediate justification. By examining how memory fits with foundationalist and reliabilist perspectives, I aim to explore memory´s capacity to function as a trustworthy source of knowledge. (shrink)

Do factive mental states come in degrees? If so, what is their underlying structure, and what is their theoretical significance? Many have observed that ‘knows that’ is not a gradable verb and have taken this to be strong evidence that propositional knowledge does not come in degrees. This paper demonstrates that the adjective ‘aware that’ passes all the standard tests of gradability, and thus strongly motivates the idea that it refers to a factive mental state that comes in degrees. We (...) will explore a range of structural questions that have been overlooked in regard to our awareness of facts, showing that the degreed structure of awareness has significant implications for our understanding of knowledge. (shrink)

This paper develops an account of committed beliefs: beliefs we commit to through reflection and conscious reasoning. To help make sense of committed beliefs, I present a new view of conscious reasoning, one of putting yourself in a position to become phenomenally consciously aware of evidence. By doing this for different pieces of evidence, you begin to make your up mind, making conscious reasoning, as such, a voluntary activity with an involuntary conclusion. The paper then explains how we use conscious (...) reasoning in reflection not just to form and change committed beliefs, but to become aware of existing ones. The paper concludes with an explanation of how the limitations of conscious reasoning require us to maintain committed beliefs in a system. It is our maintenance of this system that allows us to knit together individual episodes of conscious reasoning into one enduring performance as a committed systematic believer. (shrink)

Contemporary philosophers are attracted by the Indispensability Claim, according to which emotions are indispensable in acquiring knowledge of some important values. The truth of this claim is often thought to depend on that of Emotional Dogmatism, the view that emotions justify evaluative judgements because they (seem to) make us aware of the relevant values. The aim of this paper is to show that the Indispensability Claim does not stand or fall with Emotional Dogmatism and that there is actually an attractive (...) alternative way of developing it. We first argue that the Indispensability Claim requires a deflationary account of the cognitive bases of emotions, which we call the Simple View and defend against a variety of criticisms. Armed with the Simple View, we show that the Indispensability Claim is made true by three roles of the emotions: they help us access the relevant evidence, provide a needed hook-up between evidence and judgement, and contribute to evaluative understanding. (shrink)

La prospettiva transdisciplinare è il tentativo di costruire un nuovo sapere umano. Transdisciplinare si dice di un metodo per lo studio di problemi complessi che rifiuta l’ottica riduzionista dell’approccio scientifico convenzionale. Al contrario, mira all’integrazione o unione di diverse branche di apprendimento o campi di competenza, solitamente separati, al fine di affrontare la complessità intrinseca di alcune questioni urgenti della situazione umana attuale. A differenza, quindi, della multidisciplinarità che giustappone distinti saperi o dell’interdisciplinarità che confronta molteplici visioni disciplinari su un (...) unico problema comune, un metodo transdisciplinare si preoccupa di proporre nuove prospettive, basandosi sulla necessità di trovare soluzioni alternative che uniscano metodologie plurali per crearne di totalmente inedite. In questo contesto, tuttavia, intendiamo transdisciplinare con un significato che si propone di andare oltre all’accezione comune: superando i confini dell’idea di identità tutta umana, transdisciplinare si può dire di un sapere integrato volto alla tutela delle molteplici vie di accesso al mondo e, quindi, non solo umane. Ma in che senso si può sostenere che questa nuova idea di transdisciplinare sia essenzialmente biodiversa? Come costruire un sapere che sia capace di rivoluzionare il nostro modo di vedere il mondo? (shrink)

The battlefield of the Anthropocene is a tragic one. It begins at the end. It emerges out of melancholy, in the locality of being not-dead-yet. As an Epoch dating the human impact on earth, the Anthropocene looks like a graveyard-to-come, one in which the story of humankind is writing its own epitaph in real time. The tragedy of our moment, or the tragic moment of our action means having to act despite knowing it is too late, searching for hope in (...) the dark. This tragedy produces the sensation that humankind must necessarily face its own limits. And these limits are telling a story that is not a happy one: we cannot keep up with the pace of such an entropic boneyard. When it comes to the massive eradications of people and species, no one can justify the feelings of sympathy that proliferate against a back- ground of intellectual numbness. The battlefield of the Anthropocene is one that demands action. (shrink)

This blog post describes an inter-disciplinary (incl. linguistics and anthropology) epistemology course I designed to centre the linguistic and cultural diversity that my students bring to the classroom.

In this short paper, I respond to Keith Raymond Harris’ paper “Synthetic Media, The Wheel, and the Burden of Proof”. In particular, I examine his arguments against two prominent approaches employed to deal with synthetic media such as deepfakes and other GenAI content, namely, the “reactive” and “proactive” approaches. In the first part, I raise a worry about the problem Harris levels at the reactive approach, before providing a constructive way of expanding his worry regarding the proactive approach.

This note (it is not a full-fledged academic paper) introduces a novel approach to classic thought experiments in consciousness studies through the incorporation of non-referential terms—symbols that present experiences directly rather than referring to them. By analyzing the Hard Problem, Knowledge Argument, Philosophical Zombies, and Spectrum Inversion thought experiments using both referential terms (like "blackness") and non-referential terms (like █), the paper reveals that many apparent philosophical puzzles arise from conflating referential descriptions with direct presentational experiences. The analysis shows that (...) attempting to formulate these thought experiments using non-referential terms often requires instantiating the very experiences in question, creating self-referential paradoxes that solve or dissolve the original problems. (shrink)

Epistemologists have widely accepted that truth, justification, and belief are necessary conditions for knowledge. This article challenges the necessity of the two components, “belief” and “justification”, in the definition of knowledge. It argues that belief is distinct from knowledge; belief is an act of will, whereas knowledge is acquired automatically. One may possess knowledge without being actively willing to believe it, and conversely, one may will to believe something without actually knowing it. Additionally, justification should be seen as a method (...) of validating knowledge, not a fundamental part of its definition. Therefore, knowledge without justification remains knowledge, even though its truth cannot be proven. Building on this perspective, the proposed definition of knowledge shifts to “awareness or recognition of facts.” According to this definition, the Gettier problem and the lottery paradox find alternative solutions. (shrink)

The 1999 volume in the series "Logical Analysis of Language" edited by Nina D. Arutyunova and Irina B. Levontina. The contributions to this volume discuss logical, gnoseological and anthropological problems with focus on natural language ontologies and the image of human across diverse languages and cultures.

What is perception? What is, if any, its content? What is the contribution of perception to knowledge? This book addresses these questions clearly and directly. The chief thesis the author argues for is that perception has conceptual, propositional, and world-dependent content. After criticizing those theories of experience that conceive it as contentless (the causal-linkage approach and naïve realism), the book examines the nature of perceptual content. Here, the author critically scrutinizes different varieties of non-conceptualism and claims that the content of (...) experience is partly conceptual. Having established that thesis, the author defends the propositional-attitude view, according to which perceptual content is propositional in nature. A crucial step in the book comes when the author explores the world-dependent character of such content. He holds here that the content of experience is composed of concepts and the presented objects, such as they appear from the subject’s point of view and determined environmental conditions. This view allows him to state that perception provides non-inferential knowledge of the truth-makers of our judgments and beliefs. Furthermore, and importantly, that view sheds light on how the mind relates to the world. (shrink)

This article proposes a unified solution to the mind-body problem, grounded in the philosophical framework of Ethical Empirical Rationalism. By presenting a mathematical model of the mind-body interaction, we oƯer a dynamic feedback loop that resolves the traditional dualistic separation between mind and body. At the core of our model is the concept of essence—an eternal, metaphysical truth that sustains both the mind and body. Through coupled diƯerential equations, we demonstrate how the mind and body are two expressions of the (...) same essence, interacting in a continuous and harmonious relationship. This approach provides a new perspective on the mind-body relationship, grounded in both empirical evidence and metaphysical insight. Keywords: Mind-body problem, Unmoved Mover, Essence, Unified Theory, Feedback Loop, Ethical Empirical Rationalism, Mathematical Modeling. (shrink)

The value of testimony as a source of knowledge has been a subject of epistemological debates. The "trust theory of testimony" suggests that human testimony is based on an affective relationship supported by social norms. However, the advent of generative artificial intelligence challenges our understanding of genuine testimony. The concept of "quasi-testimony" seeks to characterize utterances produced by non-human entities that mimic testimony but lack certain fundamental attributes. This article analyzes these issues in depth, exploring philosophical perspectives on testimony and (...) the implications of conversational AI technologies on our epistemic practices. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is to determine the role of intuitions in Gettier cases. Critics of the Method of Cases argue that arguments developed within this method contain a premise that is justified by its intuitiveness; they also argue that intuitions are unreliable sources of evidence. By contrast, Max Deutsch argues that this critique is unsound since intuitions do not serve as evidence for premises. In Gettier cases, an intuitive premise is justified by other arguments called G-Grounds. I propose (...) a different view on the role of intuition in Gettier cases. I introduce a distinction between concept-revision arguments and concept-application arguments. On the basis of this distinction and Craig's and Spicer's distinction between intuitions of intension and intuitions of extension, I show that (1) intuitions of extension do not serve as evidence for any G-Grounds; (2) intuitions of intension do play an evidential role for all G-Grounds, but (3) in the case of G-Grounds which are used as concept-application arguments, they are a poor source of evidence, while (4) in the case of G-Grounds used as concept-revision arguments, they could be a reliable source of evidence if they are intuitions of intension of a speaker immersed in philosophical discourse. (shrink)

Conversation, dialogue, reasonable disagreement, and the acquisition of knowledge through the words of others, all of this has always been at the center of philosophers’ concerns since the emergence of philosophy in Ancient Greece. It is also important to recognize that in contemporary philosophy, marked by the linguistic turn, there is a wealth of intellectual production on ethical, psycho-linguistic, logical-linguistic, and pragmatic aspects of the conversation. Despite all this, this is the first collection of texts dedicated exclusively to the strictly (...) epistemic aspects of this phenomenon which is so decisive for the very constitution of our humanity. This book brings together the contributions of fifteen leading philosophers on some of the most relevant issues of what we could call the Epistemology of Conversation. (shrink)

The purpose of this paper is to show that understanding AI hallucination requires an interdisciplinary approach that combines insights from epistemology and cognitive science to address the nature of AI-generated knowledge, with a terminological worry that concepts we often use might carry unnecessary presuppositions. Along with terminological issues, it is demonstrated that AI systems, comparable to human cognition, are susceptible to errors in judgement and reasoning, and proposes that epistemological frameworks, such as reliabilism, can be similarly applied to enhance the (...) trustworthiness of AI outputs. This exploration seeks to deepen our understanding of the possibility of AI cognition and its implications for the broader philosophical questions of knowledge and intelligence. (shrink)

Practical knowledge, in the sense made famous by G. E. M. Anscombe, is “the knowledge that a man has of his intentional actions”. This knowledge is very ordinary, but philosophically it is not easy to understand. One illuminating approach is to see practical knowledge as a kind of self-knowledge or self-consciousness. I offer an enrichment of this approach, by (1) exploiting Gilbert Ryle’s discussion of heeding (that is, paying attention), in particular paying attention to one’s own intentional action, and (2) (...) constructing and applying a practical analogue of Kant’s apperceptive “I think”. Combining (1) and (2), I offer an argument for my main claim—paying attention to what one is doing is an exercise of practical self-consciousness – it is how practical self-consciousness gets “schematized”. (shrink)

In this chapter, Rob Lovering provides some possible answers to the question of whether God—understood as an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, spiritual, personal deity who created the universe—knows what it’s like to undergo a positive, psychoactive, drug-induced experience; or, as he puts it for short, whether God knows what it’s like to get high. For either God knows what it’s like to get high or he does not and, in any case, interesting metaphysical, epistemological, and value theoretical questions arise. Lovering concludes (...) that, collectively, the possible answers he provides to the question of whether God knows what it’s like to get high generate an intriguing (and paradoxical) conclusion: It is hard to see how God could know what it’s like to get high, but it is also hard to see how he could not know what it’s like to get high. (shrink)

Several philosophers have proposed Knowledge-Based Decision Theories (KDTs)—theories that require agents to maximize expected utility as yielded by utility and probability functions that depend on the agent’s knowledge. Proponents of KDTs argue that such theories are motivated by Knowledge-Reasons norms that require agents to act only on reasons that they know. However, no formal derivation of KDTs from Knowledge-Reasons norms has been suggested, and it is not clear how such norms justify the particular ways in which KDTs relate knowledge and (...) rational action. In this paper, I suggest a new axiomatic method for justifying KDTs and providing them with stronger normative foundations. I argue that such theories may be derived from constraints on the relation between knowledge and preference, and that these constraints may be evaluated relative to intuitions regarding practical reasoning. To demonstrate this, I offer a representation theorem for a KDT proposed by Hawthorne and Stanley (2008) and briefly evaluate it through its underlying axioms. (shrink)

Knowledge claims are abundant in the literature on large language models (LLMs); but can we say that GPT-4 truly "knows" the Earth is round? To address this question, we review standard definitions of knowledge in epistemology and we formalize interpretations applicable to LLMs. In doing so, we identify inconsistencies and gaps in how current NLP research conceptualizes knowledge with respect to epistemological frameworks. Additionally, we conduct a survey of 100 professional philosophers and computer scientists to compare their preferences in knowledge (...) definitions and their views on whether LLMs can really be said to know. Finally, we suggest evaluation protocols for testing knowledge in accordance to the most relevant definitions. (shrink)

Whereas many philosophers accept the validity of 'probability' and confine themselves to interpreting it, this paper challenges its conceptual coherence by critically examining its use in the empirical world. While measure theory provides a rigorous mathematical framework for manipulating probability functions, we argue that applying precise probability measures to empirically uncertain outcomes introduces a fundamental contradiction. Probability measures claim to quantify uncertainty while simultaneously implying a degree of understanding about events that we do not fully possess. This inconsistency undermines the (...) idea that probability offers objective or reliable insights into reality. Moreover, we argue that it is impossible to assign a correct probability in the empirical world—neither deduction nor induction provides a justifiable basis for doing so. Therefore, despite probability appearing to work as a practical tool for managing uncertainty, its theoretical foundation collapses under scrutiny in empirical applications. (shrink)

This article explores the concept of degrees of epistemic responsibility by examining the debate between Michael Bishop and Katherine Puddifoot on the internalist perspective on epistemic responsibility. While Bishop’s empirical evidence challenges internalism, Puddifoot argues it can be supportive. The author presents an account of degrees of epistemic responsibility, drawing inspiration from Martin Montminy’s idea of moral responsibility. The central argument suggests that an agent is epistemically responsible only if her reasoning strategy aligns with her epistemic abilities, a concept referred (...) to as epistemic par performance. The paper discusses how the Bishop-Puddifoot debate contributes to this perspective, presents Montminy’s view on moral responsibility, and applies it to epistemic responsibility, emphasizing the importance of matching reasoning strategies with individual abilities. The article ultimately highlights the contextual, ability-dependent, and effort-inclusive nature of epistemic responsibility and offers a framework to recognize and credit agents based on their contributions and endeavors in expanding our epistemic horizons. (shrink)

In a convoluted and a frail sense there might be external reasons. One cannot just precipitate an external reason on demand. Their emergence is feasible only via a posteriori rationalization---effectively the effects of future mental events. This paper attempts to specify pre-conditions for an (internal) reason for action in the past to transform into an external reason later. Most fundamentally one must not know something about one's reason at the time of action .

Was ist Wissen von morgen im Vergleich mit Wissen von heute? Die geschichtliche Erfahrung zeigt diesen Übergang als ein Prozess der Weiterentwicklung der Sprache, weil menschliches Wissen an die Sprache gekoppelt ist, und seine Inhalte zu begreifen nur in sprachlichen Formen möglich ist. Während alte Sprachen vergehen, entstehen neue Sprachen: in diesem Prozess der Erneuerung von sprachlichen Formen wird das Wissen gesammelt, geklärt, und weitergegeben, und das geschieht durch Auswahl der Worte, deren Gebrauchswert ständig geprüft wird.