Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Acquaintance with contingent facts can yield knowledge of contingent truths
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
2 perspectives
Reason for 1 of 2
?
1.
Acquaintance, as Russell conceived it, is a direct non-propositional relation that is logically prior to and distinct from propositional knowledge.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Contingent truths are propositional in form and require predication, inference, or conceptual mediation beyond mere acquaintance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Therefore, acquaintance alone cannot constitute knowledge-that of contingent facts without a conceptual apparatus that transforms raw acquaintance into judgment.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reason for 2 of 2
?
1.
Wittgenstein's private language argument establishes that ostensive self-acquaintance with inner states lacks the normative framework required for genuine truth-apt content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Without a public criterion for correct application, apparent acquaintance with pain yields only an impression of knowledge, not knowledge of a contingent truth.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
When one is acquainted with one's being in pain, that acquaintance gives knowledge of the contingent truth that one is in pain
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.