Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Knowledge of an object is not lost when the object ceases... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Personal Identity
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Knowledge of an object is not lost when the object ceases to exist, though the nature of that knowledge shifts from predication to causal knowledge.

    Personal IdentityTruth & Knowledge
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.An object must be extant for us to acquire knowledge about it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Once acquired, knowledge does not require the continued existence of its object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When an object no longer exists, knowledge about it becomes knowledge of which causes would produce such a thing if it came into being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Knowledge is constitutively relational: it requires an actual truth-maker, and when an object ceases to exist, the proposition loses its referent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bertrand Russell's distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge by description entails that causal inference yields only propositional description, not genuine object-knowledge.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.What the argument calls 'causal knowledge' is therefore a category error—it is modal hypothetical reasoning, not knowledge of the object that no longer exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Aristotle's Posterior Analytics grounds scientific knowledge (episteme) in the necessity of its object; contingent, destructible particulars cannot anchor demonstrative knowledge even while they exist.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If genuine knowledge of a particular requires its necessary existence as an object, then the 'shift' described is not a transformation of knowledge but its replacement by a distinct epistemic state about universals.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The original claim therefore conflates knowledge of a particular individual with knowledge of its kind, dissolving rather than preserving the personal identity of the cognitive object.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Personal IdentityTruth & Knowledge

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Causation1 linked

    Related

    An object must be extant for us to acquire knowledge about it.Aristotle's Posterior Analytics grounds scientific knowledge (episteme) in the n...Bertrand Russell's distinction between knowledge by acquaintance and knowledge b...If genuine knowledge of a particular requires its necessary existence as an obje...
    +5 moreShow less
    Knowledge is constitutively relational: it requires an actual truth-maker, and w...Once acquired, knowledge does not require the continued existence of its object.

    Similar

    When an object no longer exists, knowledge about it becomes knowledge ...85%An object should not cease to exist without some causally relevant eve...83%Once acquired, knowledge does not require the continued existence of i...80%If abstract objects are causally inert, it is difficult to explain how...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: boethius-dacia
    View source passageHide passage
    In his answer to question (b) Boethius claims that while the object of knowledge must be extant in order for us to acquire knowledge about it, we need not lose that knowledge if it ceases to exist, only it can no longer be knowledge that the object has a certain predicate, but knowledge about precisely which causes such a thing will have if it comes into being. As for (c), he similarly holds that a word does not become meaningless by losing its referents, because it is still possible to entertai
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    The original claim therefore conflates knowledge of a particular individual with...
    What the argument calls 'causal knowledge' is therefore a category error—it is m...
    When an object no longer exists, knowledge about it becomes knowledge of which c...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit