Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-06T09:32:26.211Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

BELIEFS OVER AVOWALS: SETTING UP THE DISCOURSE ON SELF-KNOWLEDGE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2019

Lukas Schwengerer
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wright (1998) and Bar-On (2004) put pressure on the idea that self-knowledge as an explanandum should be identified with privileged belief formation. They argue that setting up the discourse on the level of belief and belief formation rules out promising approaches to explain self-knowledge. Hence, they propose that we should characterize self-knowledge on the level of linguistic practice instead. I argue against them that self-knowledge cannot be fully characterized by features of our linguistic practice. I propose that in some circumstances – disagreements about one's mental states – self-knowledge plays a role, but this role cannot be described in virtue of features of our linguistic practice. I consider three objections to the argument and conclude that we should not conceive self-knowledge solely in terms of linguistic practice.

Type
Article
Information
Episteme , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 66 - 81
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019

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

REFERENCES

Bar-On, D. 2004. Speaking My Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-On, D. 2011. ‘Neo-Expressivism: Avowals' Security and Privileged Self-Knowledge.’ In Hatzimoysis, A. (ed.), Self-Knowledge, pp. 189–201. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bar-On, D. and Sias, J. 2013. ‘Varieties of Expressivism.’ Philosophy Compass, 8(8): 699–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brueckner, A. 2011. ‘Neo-Expressivism.’ In Hatzimoysis, A. (ed.), Self-Knowledge, pp. 170–88. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Byrne, A. 2005. ‘Introspection.’ Philosophical Topics, 33(1): 79–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carruthers, P. 2011. The Opacity of Mind: An Integrative Theory of Self-Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cassam, Q. 2014. Self-Knowledge for Humans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, D. 2003. Expression and the Inner. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Ryle, G. 1949 [1984]. The Concept of Mind. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Snowdon, P. 2012. ‘How to Think about Phenomenal Self-Knowledge.’ In Coliva, A. (ed.), The Self and Self-Knowledge, pp. 243–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williamson, T. 2000. Knowledge and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 1989. ‘Wittgenstein's Later Philosophy Of Mind: Sensation, Privacy, and Intention.’ Journal of Philosophy, 86: 622–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, C. 1998. ‘Self-Knowledge: The Wittgensteinian Legacy.’ In Wright, C., Smith, B. and Macdonald, C. (eds), Knowing Our Minds, pp. 13–45. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 2001. Rails to Infinity: Essays on Themes from Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wright, C. 2015. Self-knowledge: The Reality of Privileged Access. In Goldberg, S. C. (ed.), Externalism, Self-Knowledge, and Skepticism, pp. 49–74. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar