DOCSLIB.ORG

IF YOU BELIEVE YOU BELIEVE, YOU BELIEVE. a CONSTITUTIVE ACCOUNT of KNOWLEDGE of ONE’S OWN BELIEFS Peter BAUMANN

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IF YOU BELIEVE YOU BELIEVE, YOU BELIEVE. a CONSTITUTIVE ACCOUNT of KNOWLEDGE of ONE’S OWN BELIEFS Peter BAUMANN IF YOU BELIEVE YOU BELIEVE, YOU BELIEVE. A CONSTITUTIVE ACCOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE OF ONE’S OWN BELIEFS Peter BAUMANN ABSTRACT: Can I be wrong about my own beliefs? More precisely: Can I falsely believe that I believe that p? I argue that the answer is negative. This runs against what many philosophers and psychologists have traditionally thought and still think. I use a rather new kind of argument, – one that is based on considerations about Moore's paradox. It shows that if one believes that one believes that p then one believes that p – even though one can believe that p without believing that one believes that p. KEYWORDS: self-knowledge, Moore’s paradox, second-order beliefs Can I be wrong about my own beliefs? More precisely: Can I falsely believe that I believe that p? Can I have a false second-order belief that I believe that p (where the belief that p is a first-order belief)? The question is whether a sentence of the following form can be true: (1) S believes that he believes that p, but he does not believe that p.1 If all instantiations of the scheme (1) are false, then the following holds: (2) If S believes that he believes that p, then he does believe that p. In other words, all our second-order beliefs are true: BBp Bp.2 This is the claim I will argue for. However, prima facie it seems that it is possible to have a false second-order belief with the following content: 1 For the sake of simplicity, I am not adding temporal indices except where clarity demands it. I assume here that S is attributing a belief to herself as a present one, not a past or future one. 2 "Bp" stands for "S believes that p." The scope of "B" is the narrowest possible one: B(Bp) and B(p). I will omit parentheses in the following. The claim that BBp Bp is (like some other claims here) one of necessity but I won’t mention this below, just for the sake of simplicity. © LOGOS & EPISTEME, VIII, 4 (2017): 389-416 Peter Baumann (3) I believe that p.3 Why should the fact that someone believes something of the form of (3) entail anything about the truth of that belief? This idea runs against what many philosophers and psychologists have traditionally thought and still think.4 I will use a rather new kind of argument for the main thesis here, – one that involves considerations about Moore's paradox and amounts to a constitutive view of self-knowledge of one’s beliefs.5 The main argument will be developed in 3 Here, (3) is meant as a report of a belief state, not as its expression (cf. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (2.ed.) (Oxford: Blackwell, 1958), pp.190-192). 4 See, e.g., among the psychologists: Richard Nisbett and Timothy D. Wilson, “Telling More than We Can Know: Verbal Reports on Mental Processes,” Psychological Review 84 (1977): 231-259; Richard Nisbett and Lee Ross, Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment, (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1980), 195ff.; Timothy D. Wilson, “Strangers to Ourselves: The Origins and Accuracy of Beliefs about One’s Own Metnal States,” in Attribution. Basic Issues and Applications, eds. John H. Harvey and Gifford Weary (Orlando: Academic Press, 1985), 9-36; Alison Gopnik, “How We Know Our Minds: The Illusion of First-Person Knowledge of Intentionality,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (1993): 9ff.; Daryl J. Bem, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Human Affairs (Belmont, CA: Brooks/ Cole, 1970); for the “anti-Cartesian” attitude against another transparency thesis see amongst philosophers Timothy Williamson, Knowledge and its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), ch.4. 5 In a very general way, I am inspired by a paper by Sydney Shoemaker (see his “Moore’s Paradox and Self Knowledge,” Philosophical Studies 77 (1995): 211-228, his “Moore’s Paradox and Self- Knowledge,” in Sydney Shoemaker, The First Person Perspective and Other Essays (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), and also his “On Knowing One’s Own Mind,” Philosophical Perspectives 2 (1988): 183-209; see also David M. Rosenthal, “Self-Knowledge and Moore’s Paradox,” Philosophical Studies 77 (1995): 195-209, and Rogers Albritton, “Comments on Moore’s Paradox and Self-Knowledge,” Philosophical Studies 77 (1995): 229-239). He mainly argues that if S believes that p, then S believes or even knows he believes that p. I, however, argue for the converse claim (see also Byeong D. Lee, “Moore’s Paradox and Self-Ascribed Belief,” Erkenntnis 55 (2001): 359-370). Furthermore, Shoemaker's thesis is restricted to the case of rational people. Shoemaker’s “Moore’s Paradox” (1995): 225-226 also makes the converse claim, but much more tentatively, and with restriction to rational people (see with even more reservations, his “Moore’s Paradox” (1996), 92, 93); the argument presented here does not rely on ideas about rationality. For a similar approach see Tyler Burge, “Our Entitlement to Self- Knowledge,” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 96 (1996): 91-116. The thesis that BBp Bp is much stronger than Burge’s earlier claim that “Cartesian” thoughts of the form “I am thinking the thought that water is wet” are always true (see his “Individualism and Self-Knowledge,” The Journal of Philosophy 85 (1988): 649-663). Jaakko Hintikka, Knowledge and Belief. An Introduction to the Logic of the Two Notions (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1962), 123ff. goes into a similar direction as I do here. He, however, does not rely upon Moore's paradox (even though he has a lot to say about it; see Hintikka, Knowledge and Belief, 64ff.). For more recent constitutive views which differ considerably from the proposal here see, e.g., Richard Moran, 390 If You Believe, You Believe. A Constitutive Account of Knowledge of One’s Own Beliefs sections 2-4. Section 5 discusses objections. But first I need to say more about the notion of belief and related notions in order to clarify the main thesis and set the stage. 1. Beliefs I take beliefs to be dispositional mental states that can be both manifest and latent, – dispositions for occurrent thought and more indirectly also for behavior based on such occurrent thoughts.6 Beliefs do not always express themselves in occurrent thoughts. In my dreamless sleep I still believe that 2+2=4 even though I am sleeping and not thinking at all about numbers. One of the characteristics that distinguish beliefs from other mental states is a specific relation to truth: Their contents are held true by the subject. Desires and other mental states are different in that respect. Beliefs are “cognitive” in this sense; one could also say that a belief is a cognitive attitude towards some content. In the case of a self-attributing second-order belief the notion of “I” lies within the scope of the second-order belief; it is not sufficient for such beliefs to attribute a belief to someone who happens to be me if I don’t think of that person as myself. We are dealing with de dicto-beliefs about oneself here,7 not with de re- beliefs. Similarly, the notion of a belief, too, lies within the scope of the second- order belief. If somebody ascribes a belief to herself, then she must be clear about the type of attitude she ascribes to herself. One cannot, for conceptual reasons, believe that (3) is true of oneself and not believe it is a belief (that p) that one has here. Believing the latter presupposes that one possesses the concept of a belief and that one knows certain basic things about beliefs. One need not have a psychological theory of belief but one needs to know, say, that there is a difference between beliefs and other kinds of attitudes (like desires, for instance). If one does not know these basic things then one does not possess the concept of a belief and thus cannot have second-order (de dicto) beliefs.8 All this will become important below. Authority and Estrangement. An Essay on Self-Knowledge (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), Fordi Fernández, “Self-Knowledge, Rationality and Moore’s Paradox,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (2005): 533-556, and Mathiey Doucet, “Can We Be Self- Deceived about What We Believe? Self-Knowledge, Self-Deception, and Rational Agency,” European Journal of Philosophy 20 (2012): E1-25. 6 If not indicated otherwise, I will use “thought” for “occurrent thought.” 7 One could add: with de se-beliefs (see David Lewis, “Attitudes de Dicto and de Se,” Philosophical Review 88 (1979): 513-543). 8 This holds even given an externalist account of mental or semantic content. 391 Peter Baumann To avoid misunderstandings: By "second-order beliefs" I do not mean beliefs that one does not have a certain first-order belief. It is certainly possible for people to have repressed beliefs that they think they don’t have. Jack might just laugh at the thought that his parents abandoned him when he was 4 years old but psychotherapy might uncover that he has a repressed belief that this was indeed the case. This example is of the following form: S believes that he does not believe that p, but he does believe that p. This is certainly possible but I am not dealing with this case here (see also section 5.1 below).9 2. The Argument: First Part Suppose that (4) S believes at t-1 that he believes that p.10 What does this entail? Dispositional beliefs are often latent. However, there is a condition on dispositional beliefs which seems very plausible: (5) If S believes at t-1 that p, then S manifests that belief as an occurrent belief at t* (which is either before or at t-1).11 A few remarks on (5) are necessary before we can make the next step in the argument.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol
    The Case for Contextualism: Knowledge, Skepticism, and Context, Vol. 1 Draft of 10/18/08 Keith DeRose [email protected] Chapter 1: Contextualism, Invariantism, Skepticism, and 1 What Goes On in Ordinary Conversation Chapter 2: The Ordinary Language Basis for Contextualism 50 Chapter 3: Assertion, Knowledge, and Context 87 Chapter 4: Single Scoreboard Semantics 138 Chapter 5: “Bamboozled by Our Own Words”: Semantic 165 Blindness and Some Objections to Contextualism Chapter 6: Now You Know It, Now You Don’t: 201 Intellectualism, Contextualism, and Subject-Sensitive Invariantism Chapter 7: Knowledge, Assertion and Action: Contextualism 246 vs. Subject-Sensitive Invariantism References 302 Acknowledgements vii Chapter 1: Contextualism, Invariantism, Skepticism, and 1 What Goes On in Ordinary Conversation 1. Contextualism and the Old Bank Cases 1 2. Cases Involving Speakers in Different Conversations Talking About the Same 4 Subject 3. Contextualism and Invariantism 7 4. “Strength of Epistemic Position,” Comparative Conditionals, and Generic 8 Contextualism 5. Semantic Mechanism? 10 6. Which Claims to Take Seriously and the “Floor” of “Know(s)” 15 7. Is This Epistemology or Philosophy of Language? 20 8. Contextualism Regarding Other Epistemic Terms 22 9. Contextualism is Not a Thesis about the Structure of Knowledge or of Justification 23 10. “Subject” Vs. “Attributor” Contextualism 24 11. Intellectualism and the Distinction between “Classical” and “Subject-Sensitive” 26 Invariantism 12. A Brief History of Contextualism 28 13. Contextualism, Invariantism, and Relevant Alternatives 32 14. Against Contextualist Versions of RA That Tie the Content of Knowledge 37 Attributing Claim Directly to What the Range of Relevant Alternatives Is 15. Against Contrastivism 41 16.
    [Show full text]
  • Burge-Foundations of Mind.Pdf
    Foundations of Mind This page intentionally left blank Foundations of Mind Philosophical Essays, Volume 2 TYLER BURGE CLARENDON PRESS · OXFORD 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox26dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York Tyler Burge 2007 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2007 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Burge, Tyler.
    [Show full text]
  • On Autonomy and Self-Binding Charlie Coil University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
    University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ScholarWorks@UARK Theses and Dissertations 8-2018 Abandoning the Dream of Omnipotence: On Autonomy and Self-Binding Charlie Coil University of Arkansas, Fayetteville Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd Part of the Applied Behavior Analysis Commons, Behavioral Economics Commons, and the Comparative Philosophy Commons Recommended Citation Coil, Charlie, "Abandoning the Dream of Omnipotence: On Autonomy and Self-Binding" (2018). Theses and Dissertations. 2893. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/2893 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@UARK. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@UARK. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected]. Abandoning the Dream of Omnipotence: On Autonomy and Self-Binding A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by Charles Coil, Jr. University of Arkansas Master of Arts in Philosophy, 2009 August 2018 University of Arkansas This dissertation is approved for recommendation to the Graduate Council. ______________________________ Eric Funkhouser, PhD Dissertation Director ______________________________ ______________________________ Jacob Adler, PhD Tom Senor, PhD Committee Member Committee Member Abstract I offer a prolegomenon to the philosophical study of a uniquely human activity—the self- binding act. This philosophical interest directly connects with the Enlightenment project of centralizing personal autonomy and individual freedom as primary values of personhood. Self- binding represents an easily referenced action that introduces a possible clash between autonomy and freedom on the one hand seen as in conflict with other ancient basic human values like self- control and avoiding akrasia.
    [Show full text]
  • Conversations 7
    Conversations 7 THE JOURNAL OF CAVELLIAN STUDIES CONVERSATIONS 7 Conversations: The Journal of Cavellian Studies 7 Date June 2019 - September 2020 Editor David LaRocca (Cornell University) Contributors Steven G. Affeldt (Le Moyne College) Isabel Andrade (Yachay Wasi) Stephanie Brown (Williams College) Alice Crary (University of Oxford/The New School) Byron Davies (National Autonomous University of Mexico) Thomas Dumm (Amherst College) Richard Eldridge (Swarthmore College) Yves Erard (University of Lausanne) Eli Friedlander (Tel Aviv University) Alonso Gamarra (McGill University) Paul Grimstad (Columbia University) Arata Hamawaki (Auburn University) Louisa Kania (Williams College) Nelly Lin-Schweitzer (Williams College) Richard Moran (Harvard University) Sianne Ngai (Stanford University) Bernie Rhie (Williams College) Lawrence Rhu (University of South Carolina) Eric Ritter (Vanderbilt University) William Rothman (University of Miami) Naoko Saito (Kyoto University) Don Selby (College of Staten Island, The City University of New York) P. Adams Sitney (Princeton University) Abraham D. Stone (University of California, Santa Cruz) Nicholas F. Stang (University of Toronto) Lindsay Waters (Harvard University Press) Kay Young (University of California, Santa Barbara) CONVERSATIONS 7 Managing Editors Sérgio Dias Branco (University of Coimbra): [email protected] Amir Khan (Dalian Maritime University): [email protected] Advisory Board Sarah Beckwith (Duke University) Peter Dula (Eastern Mennonite University) Richard Eldridge (Swarthmore
    [Show full text]
  • Keith Derose
    Keith DeRose Yale University Dept. of Philosophy P.O. Box 208306 New Haven, Connecticut 06520-8306 . Personal: Born, April 24, 1962; married; two grown children Areas of Specialization: Epistemology, Philosophy of Language Areas of Competence: History of Modern Philosophy, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Religion Academic Positions: Yale University o April 2005-present: Allison Foundation Professor of Philosophy o July 2000-present: Professor of Philosophy o July 1998-June 2000: Associate Professor of Philosophy Rice University o July 1996-June 1998: Associate Professor of Philosophy o July 1993-June 1996: Assistant Professor of Philosophy New York Univesity: Sept. 1990-June 1993: Assistant Professor of Philosophy UCLA: Sept. 1985-June 1990: Teaching Assistant, Associate, Fellow Education: UCLA, 1984-1990: M.A., Philosophy, 1986; Ph.D., Philosophy, 1990 o Dissertation: "Knowledge, Epistemic Possibility, and Scepticism"; Advisor: Rogers Albritton o Awards: Carnap Essay Prize, 1990; Griffin Fellowship, 1990; Carnap Essay Prize (co-winner), 1989; Robert M. Yost Prize for Excellence in Teaching, 1988 Calvin College, 1980-1984: B.A., with honors, Philosophy major, 1984 . 1 Courses Taught at Yale, Rice, NYU, UCLA: Graduate: Epistemology – basic graduate epistemology course and many seminars on particular topics, Philosophy of Language, Philosophy of Religion, History of Modern Philosophy (seminars on single and on multiple philosophers, covering Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, and Reid), Metaphysics (all multiple times), Teaching College Philosophy
    [Show full text]
  • Kripke CV 2019 Short
    Saul A. Kripke Distinguished Professor in the Programs of Philosophy and Computer Science Saul Kripke Center CUNY Graduate Center 365 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10016-4309 Office: 212-817-7483 [email protected] Education • B.A., Summa Cum Laude (Mathematics), Harvard University, 1962 Honorary Degrees • Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, University of Nebraska, 1977 • Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, Johns Hopkins University, 1997 • Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, University of Haifa, Israel, 1998 • Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, University of Pennsylvania, 2005 • Doctor of Humane Letters, honorary degree, University of Bucharest, 2011 Positions Prior to B.A. Degree • Lecturer, Yale University, August, 1961 (month of seminars sponsored by Office of Naval Research, Group Psychology Branch) • Lecturer, Mathematics Department Seminar, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1961- 62 Post-Graduate • Society of Fellows, Harvard University, 1963-66 • Lecturer with rank of Assistant Professor, Princeton University (taught Spring terms only, held concurrently with previous position), 1964-66 • Lecturer, Harvard University, 1966-68 • Associate Professor of Philosophy, Rockefeller University, 1966-68 • Professor of Philosophy, Rockefeller University, 1972-76 • McCosh Professor of Philosophy, Princeton University, 1977-98 • Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Ph.D Program in Philosophy and Ph.D Program in Computer Science, The City University of New York, Graduate Center, 2003-present Concurrent (Secondary)
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Susan Linn Sage School of Philosophy
    1 History of the Susan Linn Sage School of Philosophy Sydney Shoemaker and Derk Pereboom The Susan Linn Sage School of Philosophy, endowed by Henry W. Sage and promoted by Jacob Gould Schurman, opened in 1891. Sage, who had earned a fortune in the lumber industry, had been President of Cornell’s Board of Trustees since 1875, and named the school for his wife, Susan Linn Sage, who was tragically killed in 1885 in a carriage accident on Slaterville Road. Schurman was simultaneously the Susan Linn Sage Professor of Christian Ethics and Mental Philosophy, a chair also endowed by Sage, and President of the University. Philosophy had been taught previously at Cornell, but (according to Morris Bishop’s A History of Cornell) not very successfully. With the founding of the Sage School, philosophy became central to Cornell’s curriculum. The Philosophical Review was founded at this time, again endowed by Sage, under the editorship of the faculty of the Sage School, and its initial number appeared in January 1892. It was the first genuine philosophical review in the country, and has continued to be published under the auspices of the Sage School. The initial faculty included, besides Schurman, Frank Angell, James Edwin Creighton, William A. Hamond and Walter Francis Wilcox. Although psychology was initially among the subjects offered by the philosophy faculty, the arrival of the famous psychologist Edward Bradford Tichener in 1892 confirmed psychology as a separate discipline. Other philosophers in the early years included Frank Thilly, Ernest Albee, James Seth and F.R.S. Schiller. Later William Alexander Hammond, M.H.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Stanley Cavell on Fergus Kerr's
    THE INFLUENCE OF STANLEY CAVELL ON FERGUS KERR’S WITTGENSTEINIAN THEOLOGY Thesis Submitted to The College of Arts and Sciences of the UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for The Degree Master of Arts in Theological Studies by Justus Hamilton Hunter UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON Dayton, Ohio August 2011 THE INFLUENCE OF STANLEY CAVELL ON FERGUS KERR’S WITTGENSTEINIAN THEOLOGY Name: Hunter, Justus Hamilton APPROVED BY: _________________________________ Brad J. Kallenberg, Ph. D., Faculty Advisor __________________________________ John A. Inglis, Ph. D., Faculty Reader __________________________________ Kelly Johnson, Ph. D., Faculty Reader __________________________________ Sandra A. Yocum, Ph. D., Chairperson, Dept. of Religious Studies ii ABSTRACT THE INFLUENCE OF STANLEY CAVELL ON FERGUS KERR’S WITTGENSTEINIAN THEOLOGY Name: Hunter, Justus Hamilton University of Dayton Advisor: Dr. Brad J. Kallenberg This thesis argues that Fergus Kerr reads Ludwig Wittgenstein through the lens of Stanley Cavell, and this influence has an impact on Kerr’s theology. Chapter two outlines Cavell’s account of “the truth of skepticism.” For Cavell, our language does not rest upon necessary criteria (in this regard, skepticism is true), but is made possible by our attunement to one another, via our shared “forms of life.” Recognition of the truth of skepticism arouses an anxiety about the certainty of our knowledge and language. The problem we encounter is the tendency, when faced with skepticism’s truth, to engage in philosophical deflections which guide us back into imagining our language and knowledge rest upon more than “forms of life.” Wittgenstein’s methods, on Cavell’s read, aim at the removal of these deflections, deflections which give rise to philosophical illusion.
    [Show full text]
  • Linguistic Theology: Completing Postliberalism’S Linguistic Task
    Modern Theology 00:00 Month 2016 DOI: 10.1111/moth.12309 ISSN 0266-7177 (Print) ISSN 1468-0025 (Online) LINGUISTIC THEOLOGY: COMPLETING POSTLIBERALISM’S LINGUISTIC TASK JONATHAN TRAN Introduction The success of postliberal theology can be attributed to two conceptual advances: Barthian anti-foundationalism, on the one hand, and Thomistic analogical predication, on the other. The contribution of Barthian anti-foundationalism is to be found in the way it dissolves certain theoretical difficulties, while the contribution of Thomistic ana- logical predication resides in the way it legitimates theological judgment in light of these theoretical difficulties. Yet it must be acknowledged that both developments also benefit from the insights of a linguistic philosophy that dominated British philosophy in the mid-twentieth century. Facing down its own theoretical challenges, linguistic phi- losophy would come to maturation in an American context that emphasized self- expression, moral perfection, and political life. The task that I have set for myself in the following essay is to reimagine postliberal theology within this context, developing its insights toward new conceptual advances: agreement and separateness, natural conven- tions, and human possibilities for language. My argument unfolds in five parts: first, I begin with a short exercise in exemplifying the moral work of language; second I restate the role of agreement; third, I contend with postliberalism’s detractors, showing why their objections are misplaced or otherwise unfounded; fourth, I highlight the sig- nificance of the body in the linguistic turn; and, finally, I show how this reimagining of postliberal theology renews mystery in theology. Let me begin, then, with an exercise that displays language’s moral work.
    [Show full text]
  • APA Newsletters Fall 2020
    NEWSLETTERS | The American Philosophical Association APA Newsletters FALL 2020 VOLUME 20 | NUMBER 1 ASIAN AND ASIAN-AMERICAN PHILOSOPHERS AND PHILOSOPHIES FEMINISM AND PHILOSOPHY HISPANIC/LATINO ISSUES IN PHILOSOPHY LGBTQ ISSUES IN PHILOSOPHY NATIVE AMERICAN AND INDIGENOUS PHILOSOPHY PHILOSOPHY AND THE BLACK EXPERIENCE PHILOSOPHY IN TWO-YEAR COLLEGES VOLUME 20 | NUMBER 1 FALL 2020 © 2020 BY THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION ISSN 2155-9708 Table of Contents Asian and Asian American Philosophers and The Past, the Present, and the Owl of Minerva ....... 49 Philosophies ...................................................... 1 Ambiguity, Alienation, and Authenticity ................. 50 Editors’ Introduction: What Is It Like to Be a Philosopher of Asian Descent? .................................. 1 My Philosophy Journey to the West ........................ 53 The Rock on My Chest ............................................... 9 Doing Philosophy at the Margin .............................. 55 The Not-So-Lonely Journey of a Japanese American My Journey Across the Pacific ................................. 57 Philosopher .............................................................. 11 The Fluidity of Identity: Moving Toward a Fashioning Oneself as a Philosopher of Asian Philosophy of Race .................................................. 59 Descent .................................................................... 13 “Wogs” and Philosophers ........................................ 62 The Unbearable Lightness of Being an Asian American
    [Show full text]
  • A Constitutive Account of Knowledge of One's Own Beliefs
    Swarthmore College Works Philosophy Faculty Works Philosophy 2017 If You Believe, You Believe: A Constitutive Account Of Knowledge Of One’s Own Beliefs Peter Baumann Swarthmore College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-philosophy Part of the Philosophy Commons Let us know how access to these works benefits ouy Recommended Citation Peter Baumann. (2017). "If You Believe, You Believe: A Constitutive Account Of Knowledge Of One’s Own Beliefs". Logos And Episteme. Volume 8, Issue 4. 389-416. DOI: 10.5840/logos-episteme20178432 https://works.swarthmore.edu/fac-philosophy/567 This work is brought to you for free by Swarthmore College Libraries' Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Philosophy Faculty Works by an authorized administrator of Works. For more information, please contact [email protected]. IF YOU BELIEVE YOU BELIEVE, YOU BELIEVE. A CONSTITUTIVE ACCOUNT OF KNOWLEDGE OF ONE’S OWN BELIEFS Peter BAUMANN ABSTRACT: Can I be wrong about my own beliefs? More precisely: Can I falsely believe that I believe that p? I argue that the answer is negative. This runs against what many philosophers and psychologists have traditionally thought and still think. I use a rather new kind of argument, – one that is based on considerations about Moore's paradox. It shows that if one believes that one believes that p then one believes that p – even though one can believe that p without believing that one believes that p. KEYWORDS: self-knowledge, Moore’s paradox, second-order beliefs Can I be wrong about my own beliefs? More precisely: Can I falsely believe that I believe that p? Can I have a false second-order belief that I believe that p (where the belief that p is a first-order belief)? The question is whether a sentence of the following form can be true: (1) S believes that he believes that p, but he does not believe that p.1 If all instantiations of the scheme (1) are false, then the following holds: (2) If S believes that he believes that p, then he does believe that p.
    [Show full text]