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
    Those who endorse content externalism should endorse only... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Consciousness & Mind
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Those who endorse content externalism should endorse only a restricted form of privileged access, limited to the narrow contents of thoughts.

    Consciousness & MindTruth & 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.Content externalism is true.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unrestricted privileged access (covering wide/externally-individuated content) is incompatible with content externalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Privileged access restricted to narrow content is compatible with content externalism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Burge's arthritis case demonstrates that subjects are authoritative about their mental states under their own concepts, not under some narrow re-description that abstracts away from social-linguistic context.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Privileged access, properly understood following Burge, is access to wide-content thoughts under the subject's own self-ascriptive mode, not access to narrow surrogates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore, restricting privileged access to narrow content abandons the very phenomenon—first-person authority as actually practiced—that any adequate account of self-knowledge must explain.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Narrow content, as Fodor conceives it, either collapses into syntactic form or requires a problematic mapping across contexts that resists introspective access.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If narrow content is itself not transparently accessible to introspection, restricting privileged access to narrow content fails to preserve any epistemically significant first-person authority.
      ?

      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

    Consciousness & MindTruth & Knowledge

    Connections

    1 topic

    Philosophy of Language2 linked

    Related

    Burge's arthritis case demonstrates that subjects are authoritative about their ...Content externalism is true.If narrow content is itself not transparently accessible to introspection, restr...Narrow content, as Fodor conceives it, either collapses into syntactic form or r...
    +4 moreShow less
    Privileged access restricted to narrow content is compatible with content extern...Privileged access, properly understood following Burge, is access to wide-conten...Therefore, restricting privileged access to narrow content abandons the very phe...Unrestricted privileged access (covering wide/externally-individuated content) i...

    Similar

    Privileged access restricted to narrow content is compatible with cont...92%Unrestricted privileged access (covering wide/externally-individuated ...90%Having a priori knowledge of externalist thought contents requires tha...88%Content compatibilism is false — privileged access and content externa...81%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: skepticism-content-externalism
    View source passageHide passage
    I take this argument to be a reductio of content compatibilism: one of these two principles, privileged access and content externalism, must be false. One who endorses content externalism should I think endorse a restricted form of privileged access on which we can have privileged access only to the narrow contents of our thoughts (see McKinsey 2002).
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit