Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T08:54:34.220Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Non-Accidentally Factive Mental States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2016

MAHDI RANAEE
MAHDI RANAEE*
Affiliation:
The St. Andrews and Stirling Graduate Programme in Philosophy
*
*<mr223@st-andrews.ac.uk>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I offer a counterexample to Timothy Williamson’s conjecture that knowledge is the most general factive mental state; i.e., that every factive mental state entails knowledge. I describe two counterexamples (Ernest Sosa’s and Baron Reed’s) that I find unpersuasive, and argue that they fail due to a specific feature they have in common. I then argue that there is a primitive mental state that is factive but does not entail knowledge, and that constitutes a counterexample to Williamson’s conjecture that is not subject to the problems faced by Sosa’s and Reed’s counterexamples.

Je propose un contre-exemple à la conjecture de Timothy Williamson selon laquelle la connaissance est l’état mental factif le plus général, c’est-à-dire que tout état mental factif implique la connaissance. Je décris deux contre-exemples (développés par Ernest Sosa et Baron Reed) que je considère comme étant peu probants, et je souligne que l’un et l’autre échouent à convaincre de par une caractéristique spécifique qu’ils partagent. Je soutiens ensuite qu’il existe un état mental primitif, factif mais n’impliquant pas la connaissance : ce dernier constitue un contre-exemple à la conjecture de Williamson sans être sujet aux problèmes rencontrés par les deux contre-exemples précédents.

Keywords

knowledgeanalyzabilityWilliamsonfactivemental stateprimitive
Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 55 , Issue 3 , September 2016 , pp. 493 - 510
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cassam, Cassim 2009 “Can the Concept of Knowledge Be Analysed?” In Greenough, P., and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), Williamson on Knowledge (12–30). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldman, Alvin 2009 “Williamson on Knowledge and Evidence.” In Greenough, P., and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), Williamson on Knowledge (73–91). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyman, John 2014 “The Most General Factive Stative Attitude,” Analysis 74 (4): 561–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, Baron 2005 “Accidentally Factive Mental States,” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 71 (1): 134–142.Google Scholar
Roush, Sherrilyn 2005 Tracking Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sosa, Ernest 2009 “Timothy Williamson’s Knowledge and its Limits.” In Greenough, P., and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), Williamson on Knowledge (203–216). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, Timothy 2000 Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Williamson, Timothy 2009 “Replies.” In Greenough, P., and Pritchard, D. (Eds.), Williamson on Knowledge (279–384). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zagzebski, Linda. T 1991 The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar