Skip to main content
Log in

Knowing that, knowing how, and knowing to do

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Frontiers of Philosophy in China

An Erratum to this article was published on 18 November 2011

Abstract

Ryle’s distinction between knowing that and knowing how has recently been challenged. The paper first briefly defends the distinction and then proceeds to address the question of classifying moral knowledge. Moral knowledge is special in that it is practical, that is, it is essentially a motive. Hence the way we understand moral knowledge crucially depends on the way we understand motivation. The Humean theory of motivation is wrong in saying that reason cannot be a motive, but right in saying that desire is essential for motivating us. The right response to the Humean theory of motivation is to see that moral knowledge is desire-related rationality or thought-related desire. Moral knowledge is neither knowing that nor knowing how but rather a third species of knowledge which we may call “knowing to do.” Knowing to do is to be rationally disposed to do the right thing. This understanding of moral knowledge is exactly what we can learn from Aristotle’s ethics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aristotle (1925). The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle, trans. by David Ross. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Aristotle (2000). Nicomachean Ethics, ed. by R. Crisp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, D. (1971). “How is Weakness of Will Possible?” Reprinted in his Essays on Actions and Events (1980). Oxford: Clarendon Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Hume, D. (2000). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • Koethe, J. (2002). “Stanley and Williamson on Knowing How.” Journal of Philosophy, 325–328

  • Korsgaard, C. (1986). “Skepticism about Practical Reason.” Journal of Philosophy, 83(1): 5–25

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, J. (1979). “Virtue and Reason,” reprinted in McDowell 1998

  • McDowell, J. (1996). “Two Sorts of Naturalism,” reprinted in McDowell 1998

  • McDowell, J. (1998). Mind, Value, & Reality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  • McDowell, J. (1998a). “Some Issues in Aristotle’s Moral Psychology,” reprinted in McDowell 1998

  • Noë, A. (2005). “Against Intellectualism.” Analysis, 65(4): 278–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Plato (1997). “Protagoras,” in his Complete Works, ed. by J. Cooper. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryle, G. (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. (1989). “Dispositional Theories of Value.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Supp (63): 89–111

  • Snowdon, P. (2004). “Knowing How and Knowing That.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society: 1–29

  • Stanley, J., and Williamson, T. (2001). “Knowing How.” Journal of Philosophy: 411–444

  • Tang Refeng (2005). “Aristotle Lunlixue zhong de Dexing yu Shijian Zhihui” 亚里士多德伦理学中的德性与实践智慧 (“Virtue and Practical Wisdom in Aristotle’s Ethics”). Zhexue Yanjiu, 5: 70–79

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Refeng Tang.

Additional information

An erratum to this article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11466-011-0161-3

About this article

Cite this article

Tang, R. Knowing that, knowing how, and knowing to do. Front. Philos. China 6, 426–442 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-011-0148-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11466-011-0148-0

Keywords

Navigation