What Anti-Individualists Cannot Know A Priori
ABSTRACT: The attempt to hold both anti-individualism and privileged self-knowledge may have the absurd consequence that someone could know a priori propositions that are knowable only empirically. This would be so if such an attempt entailed that one could know a priori both the contents of one’s own thoughts and the anti-individualistic entailments from those thought-contents to the world. For then one could also come to know a priori (by simple deduction) the empirical conditions entailed by one’s thoughts. But I argue that there is no construal of a priori knowledge that could be used to raise an incompatibility problem of this sort. First, I suggest that the incompatibilist a priori must be a stipulative one, since in none of the main philosophical traditions does knowledge of the contents of one’s thoughts count as a priori. Then, I show that under various possible construals of a priori, the incompatibilist argument would be invalid: either a fallacy of equivocation or an argument without a plausible closure principle guaranteeing transmission of epistemic status from premises to conclusion. Finally, I maintain that the only possible construal of the property of being knowable a priori that avoids invalidity is one that fails to generate the intended reductio.
I
Compatibilism, or the attempt to hold both Burgean anti-individualism and common intuitions about privileged self-knowledge, appears to entail that a person (say, Oscar) could come to know a priori the premises of arguments of this sort:
B 1. If I am now thinking that water is wet, then water exists.
2. I am now thinking that water is wet.
Therefore,
3. Water exists.
Naturally, from such premises Oscar could come to know a priori that water exists (i.e., by simple deduction) — yet nobody can know that a priori! Some take this to be a reductio of compatibilism (call them "incompatibilists"). But I shall suggest how anti-individualists could retain common intuitions about self-knowledge, without fearing that their views would entail unacceptable claims about the epistemic status of empirical propositions. First I shall ask why incompatibilists hold that, given both anti-individualism and privileged self-knowledge, each premise of inferences such as (B) are knowable a priori. I shall then argue that there is no plausible construal of "a priori" that could be used to generate the alleged reductio.
II
First, consider (B)'s second premise: could Oscar come to know a priori the proposition that he is thinking that water is wet, according to the criteria for "a priori" knowledge in the main philosophical traditions that invoke knowledge of this sort?
John Greco in, The Nature of Ability and the Purpose of Knowledge, argues that, “...knowledge is a true belief grounded in intellectual ability” (Greco 1). Now, this is categorically a 'virtue reliabilist' or more specifically, an 'agent reliabilist' claim. The purpose of this paper to analyze Greco's virtue reliablism. Moreover, to articulate one strong objection to Greco's view and to argue that Greco's defense of virtue reliablism fails. Specifically, the argument will be made that the newly instantiated 'Sea Race Objection' example effectively refutes Greco's version of virtue reliablism.
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were very significant during the Civil Rights Movement. Both were excellent speakers and shared one goal but had two different ways of resolving it. Martin Luther King Jr. chose to resolve the issues by using non-violence to create equality amongst all races to accomplish the goal. Malcolm X also wanted to decrease discrimination and get of segregation but by using another tactic to successfully accomplish the similar goal. The backgrounds of both men were one of the main driven forces behind the ways they executed their plans to rise above the various mistreatments. Martin Luther King Jr. was a more pronounced orator, a more refined leader, and overall saw the larger picture than Malcolm X.
...el 125). Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X are both remembered as strong leaders who shared an equal dream that one day their people would be free from racism and oppression. They believed in this dream so strongly they sacrificed their lives for it.
Although both of these activists have different solutions and deliver things differently, they both address racism and the injustice the U.S. government performs on daily basis. In addition to this, they are both African Americans who persuading different audiences but are delivering the same content. In MLK’s letter he responds to his clergymen’s criticisms by addressing the racial injustices in Birmingham; while Malcolm X is delivery the same content but his audiences are blacks and whites. Even though they are both striving to declare freedom and are willing to fight for their human rights, MLK is more effective than Malcolm X in fighting against racial
Regardless of the disagreement between both schools of philosophy that Rene Descartes and David Hume founded, Descartes’s rationalism and Hume’s empiricism set the tone for skepticism regarding knowledge. Rene Descartes rationalism served to form a solid foundation for true knowledge. Although Descartes reaches an illogical conclusion, his rationalism was meant to solve life’s problem by trusting and using the mind. David Hume’s empiricism serves to be the true blueprint on how humans experience the mind. Hume’s empiricism shows that the world only observes the world through their own sense and that there are no a priori truths. For that reason it became clearer that David Hume’s empiricism explains and demonstrates that it is the better way
In this paper I will present an argument I have found in the Second Analogy for the necessity of presupposing the causal determination of each event. I will begin by briefly describing Robert Paul W...
Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were both important activists in the fight for civil rights. They had the same desire for equal rights; however, they adopted very different views on how to achieve those rights. As Goldman says in Malcolm X: Witness for the Prosecution, “Malcolm and King were not so much Manichaean opposites as halves in a yin-yang duality deep in the black soul” (pg. 226). King is known as a peaceful man who used a nonviolent approach. He used what he called “weapons of love” to fight for freedom. King was fighting to show people that they could accept blacks and look at them as equals. It was vital for him to find peace among all races and overcome the hatred felt for one another. Malcolm used an “any means necessary" approach in his fight. He was fighting to show African Americans that they should be proud of whom they were. The empowerment of his people was more important to him than living peacefully with whites. Although the tactics they used differed with one in other, King and Malcolm both inspired African Americans to fight for justice and the civil rights they deserved.
This theory entails merging two theories of knowledge: virtue epistemology and anti-luck epistemology. A key premise in Pritchard’s theory incorporates those two separate epistemic conditions that which are specifically designed to accommodate the two master intuitions about knowledge. He makes a case that cognitive achievements are compatible with knowledge which undermines the principle of environmental luck, the same luck that is widely thought to threaten knowledge in instances such as the barn façade case that Ginet
“Gun Ownership at an All-Time High.” Nraila.org. 15 February 2013. National Rifle Association. 7 April 2014. http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/2013/more-guns-less-crime-2013.aspx?s=self+defense&st=&ps
Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were the two most influential leaders of the civil rights movement. They inspired the need for change and the conquest for civil liberty. Stylistically, their philosophies, rhetoric, and feedback from the public significantly varied. Some of their tactics were controversial, and they both died in the fight for total freedom. Despite their differences, in the end, civil rights were established for all men, and segregation laws were eradicated. All in all, MLK and Malcolm X used different strategies to fight for civil
One knows that one causes some of one 's own ideas read in Principles of Human knowledge page 28. Since the mind is passive in perception, there are ideas which one 's own mind does not
The Transcendental Deductions of the pure concept of the understanding in Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, in its most general sense, explains how concepts relate a priori to objects in virtue of the fact that the power of knowing an object through representations is known as understanding. According to Kant, the foundation of all knowledge is the self, our own consciousness because without the self, experience is not possible. The purpose of this essay is to lay out Kant’s deduction of the pure concept of understanding and show how our concepts are not just empirical, but concepts a priori. We will walk through Kant’s argument and reasoning as he uncovers each layer of understanding, eventually leading up to the conclusion mentioned above.
In what is widely considered his most important work, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Locke establishes the principles of modern Empiricism. In this book he dismisses the rationalist concept of innate ideas and argues instead that the mind is a tabula rasa. Locke believed that the mind was a tabula rasa that was marked by experience and reject the Rationalist notion that the mind could perceive some truths directly, without sensory experience. The concept of tabula
To respond to this shortcoming of consciousness, some might attempt to find an absolute absolved from one-sidedness, from sheer relativity to the knowing subject. Others will not respond this way, however, instead spinning off into apathy, subjectivism, or nihilism (59). Those who do attempt to find an objective truth most often turn to science. Some have suggested that the intellect is an ...
Truth of oneself makes it visible when faced with absurd events in life where all ethical issues fade away. One cannot always pinpoint to a specific trait or what the core essence they discover, but it is often described as “finding one’s self”. In religious context, the essential self would be regarded as soul. Whereas, for some there is no such concept as self that exists since they believe that humans are just animals caught in the mechanistic world. However, modern philosophy sheds a positive light and tries to prove the existence of a self. Modern philosophers, Descartes and Hume in particular, draw upon the notion of the transcendental self, thinking self, and the empirical self, self of public life. Hume’s bundle theory serves as a distinction between these two notions here and even when both of these conception in their distinction make valid points, neither of them is more accurate.