• Aucun résultat trouvé

Keith Hossack: “Metaphysics of Knowledge”

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Partager "Keith Hossack: “Metaphysics of Knowledge”"

Copied!
1
0
0

Texte intégral

(1)

Keith Hossack: “Metaphysics of Knowledge”

Chapters 1 and 2 Problèmes de Métaphysique

7. 5. 2008 Philipp Keller

Department of Philosophy, University of Geneva

[email protected]

knows that ’

S A

Knowledge is a primitive fundamental relation between minds and facts.

The ‘Causal Thesis’: Belief causes knowledge rather than constituting it. That-clauses in knowledge attributions specify the content of the mental act causing the knowledge (2, 6).

Prize to be paid: “although Pharaoh knows of Hesperus’s being Phosphorus, we do not say that he knows that Hesperus is Phosphorus” (10)

A fundamental tension:

On the one hand

1. “an inference is rationally correct only if it is possible by its means to pass from knowledge of the premisses to knowledge of the conclusion” (5)

2. “A fact is a defeater of ’s knowledge that if, if were to learn of , would no longer be rationally jsutified in believing that ” (20)

d S A S d S

A

3. “EandΣjustify one’s belief thatAif in a favourable contextEand would cause one to know that

Σ .” (27)

A

4. “one’s warrant about is one’s disposition to know that if one has the true belief that ” (29) But on the other

A A A

“Whether something is known, or true, or a fact depends only on the actual world…” (24)

Facts

We should believe in facts because we should believe in universals and the theory of universals is incomplete / inconsistent without facts.

Facts are resemblance-makers for things in respects of universals and truthmakers for contents (43).

Combination is a multigrade relation of facts, universals and individuals.

To finitely axiomatise the theory of facts (e.g. the Axiom of Extensionality), we need vector variables, which can only be quantified by the universal and the negative existential quantifier.

Truthmakers for negative contents are negative facts, which contain negation as a constituent (the relation which holds between the constituents of a proposition iff no fact combines them).

A number of things are “sense” (or: a “Russellian proposition”) if they’re combined either in a positive or a negative fact (63, 65).

Something is a particular if it never is the first component of either a positive or a negative fact (66).

Conjunctive facts contain conjunction and two groups of things. Conjunction is the multigrade relation that obtains between these two groups if they are both combined into facts.

General facts contain generality and a group of things. Generality is the relation among these things that obtains iff there is a fact that “everything instantiates them” [???, cf. p. 72]

1

Références

Documents relatifs

superficial irregularity of J. , r) the number of linearly independent differential forms of the first kind and of degree k which are attached to Vr.. Clearly a

Thus, in all compound tenses (i.e. tenses where an auxiliary is required, such as the passé composé), adverbs are placed right after the auxiliary and just before the past

The analysis of query similarity measures and metrics has several facets like the investigation of similarity assessment dimensions, as well as the computation complexity of a

In this section we present numerical results to illustrate the theoretical results derived in the previous sections and show that well chosen regularization operators and

The MAP approach to negative norm models de- scribed above also sheds a new light on the kind of texture appreciated by the negative norms.. In order to synthetize a texture

We denote by ( n ) n∈ Z the canonical Hilbertian Hermitian orthogonal basis of H (i.e. n is the sequence which vanishes for all relative integer, excepted for n, for which it takes

All groups considered in this paper are abelian and additively writ- ten ; rings are associative and with an identity, modules are unitary... The

is a Choquet simplex and any two distinct extremal points ofjf^ are disjoint measures (see [i], Lemma 2).. This concludes the proof