I argue that no successful version of Williamson's anti‐luminosity‐argument has yet been presented, even if Srinivasan's further elaboration and defence is taken into account. There is a version invoking a coarse‐grained safety condition and one invoking a fine‐grained safety condition. A crucial step in the former version implicitly relies on the false premise that sufficient similarity is transitive. I show that some natural attempts to resolve this issue fail. Similar problems arise for the fine‐grained version. Moreover, I argue that Srinivasan's (...) defence of the more contentious fine‐grained safety condition is also unsuccessful, again for similar reasons. (shrink)

Since its appearance over a decade ago, Timothy Williamson's anti-luminosity argument has come under sustained attack. Defenders of the luminous overwhelmingly object to the argument's use of a certain margin-for-error premise. Williamson himself claims that the premise follows easily from a safety condition on knowledge together with his description of the thought experiment. But luminists argue that this is not so: the margin-for-error premise either requires an implausible interpretation of the safety requirement on knowledge, or it requires other equally implausible (...) assumptions. In this paper I bolster the margin-for-error premise against these attacks by recasting Williamson's own two-part defence, the first part intended to work on the assumption that there is no constitutive connection between the phenomenal and the doxastic, and the second intended to work without this assumption. Pace various luminists, I argue that the appeals to safety needed for Williamson's two-part defence are plausible. I also argue that all that is needed to generate the margin-for-error premise from these safety conditions is an empirical assumption about the kinds of creatures we are: that is, creatures whose beliefs are structured by certain dispositions. By recasting the anti-luminosity argument in this way, we can understand what is really at stake in the debate about luminosity: that is, whether we are luminous. (shrink)

It is widely accepted that knowledge of certain of one’s own mental states is authoritative in being epistemically more secure than knowledge of the mental states of others, and theories of self-knowledge have largely appealed to one or the other of two sources to explain this special epistemic status. The first, ‘detectivist’, position, appeals to an inner perception-like basis, whereas the second, ‘constitutivist’, one, appeals to the view that the special security awarded to certain self-knowledge is a conceptual matter. I (...) argue that there is a fundamental class of cases of authoritative self-knowledge, ones in which subjects are consciously thinking about their current, conscious intentional states, that is best accounted for in terms of a theory that is, broadly speaking, introspectionist and detectivist. The position developed has an intuitive plausibility that has inspired many who work in the Cartesian tradition, and the potential to yield a single treatment of the basis of authoritative self-knowledge for both intentional states and sensation states. (shrink)

Questions about the normative significance of ‘transparency’ do not receive much attention, even though they were central to Richard Moran’s (2001) original account. Instead, transparency is typically studied because of its epistemic and psychological peculiarities. In this paper, I consider three normative conceptions of transparency: teleological rationalism, procedural rationalism, and relational rationalism. The first is a theory about how transparency might relate to flourishing as a rational agent; the latter two are theories about how transparency relates to non-alienated self-knowledge. All (...) three conceptions, I argue, face serious problems. I end the paper by suggesting where the rationalist might go from here and by highlighting the importance of focusing not on the methods but on the broader circumstances in which self-knowledge is gained or lost. (shrink)

Among recent theories of the nature of self-knowledge, the rationalistic view, according to which self-knowledge is not a cognitive achievement—perceptual or inferential—has been prominent. Upon this kind of view, however, self-knowledge becomes a bit of a mystery. Although the rationalistic conception is defended in this article, it is argued that it has to be supplemented by an account of the transparency of belief: the question whether to believe that P is settled when one asks oneself whether P.

The aim of this paper is to take a fresh look at a discussion about the distinct existences argument that took place between David Armstrong and Frank Jackson more than fifty years ago. I will try to show that Armstrong’s argument can be successfully defended against Jackson’s objections (albeit at the price of certain concessions concerning Armstrong’s view on the meaning of psychological terms as well as his conception of universals). Focusing on two counterexamples that Jackson put forward against Hume’s (...) principle (which is central to Armstrong’s argument), I will argue that they are either compatible with Hume’s principle, or imply a false claim. I will also look at several other considerations that go against Hume’s principle, such as, for example, Kripke’s origin essentialism and counterexamples from aposteriori necessity. (shrink)

Tämä artikkeli esittelee ekspressivististä itsetuntemuksen teoriaa erityyppisten itsetuntemuksen teorioiden kontekstissa. Artikkelin viimekätinen tavoite on arvioida erityisesti ekspressivistisen teorian suhdetta Wittgensteinin mielenfilosofiaan, joka usein mainitaan teorian lähteenä, ja tarkastella teorian kehitystarpeita ja -mahdollisuuksia muiden itsetuntemuksen teorioiden valossa. Osassa 1 esitetään eräitä käsitteellisiä selvennyksiä. Osa 2 käsittelee itsetuntemuksen oletettuja filosofisesti kiinnostavia erityispiirteitä, joiden ymmärtäminen on itsetuntemuksen teorioiden arvioimisen kannalta olennaista. Osa 3 esittää itsetuntemuksen teorioiden karkean tyypittelyn sen mukaan, pitävätkö ne itseilmaisuja empiirisesti muodostettuina väittäminä, rationaaliseen toimijuuteen olennaisesti liittyvinä sitoutumina vai ekspressiivisinä lausumina. (...) Ekspressivistisen vaihtoehdon yhteydessä arvioidaan sen suhdetta Wittgensteinin ajatteluun. Osassa 4 tarkastellaan Dorit Bar-Onin muotoilemaa neo-ekspressivististä itsetuntemuksen teoriaa ja esitetään, että ansioistaan huolimatta se ei ota tyydyttävästi huomioon rationaalisen toimijan kykyä konstituoida aktiivisesti ja reflektiivisesti ajatuksiaan ja asenteitaan. Lopuksi osassa 5 esitetään ajatuksia neo-ekspressivismin jatkokehittelyä varten ja kehotetaan tarkastelemaan itseilmaisuja sosiaalisessa kontekstissa Wittgensteinin kielipeliajatuksen mukaisesti. (shrink)