I argue that a variety of influential accounts of self-knowledge are flawed by the assumption that all immediate, authoritative knowledge of our own present mental states is of one basic kind. I claim, on the contrary, that a satisfactory account of self-knowledge must recognize at least two fundamentally different kinds of selfknowledge: an active kind through which we know our own judgments, and a passive kind through which we know our sensations. I show that the former kind of self-knowledge is in an important sense fundamental, since it is intimately connected with the very capacity for rational reflection, and since it must be present in any creature that understands the first-person pronoun. Moreover, I suggest that these thoughts about self-knowledge have a Kantian provenance.
Not so long ago, in the late 20 th century, philosophers of mind generally assumed that we have some sort of privileged access to, or at any rate some special authority in speaking about, our own mental states. Most did not assume that this privilege extends to every aspect of our mental lives, but most did assume that we are at least in a specially favorable position to know our own thoughts and feelings, on the one hand, and our own standing attitudes such as belief, desire, and intention, on the other. Moreover, late twentieth century philosophers typically assumed that this privilege reflects some difference of principle in the way we can gain knowledge of these topics. The problem was to explain this difference of principle.2 Times change, however, and there are now a growing number of philosophers who question the datum this tradition set out to explain. Quassim Cassam's Self--Knowledge for Humans (2014) is a particularly direct and pointed contribution to this counteroffensive.3 Like all of Cassam's work, it contains much careful philosophical argumentation; but it aims to be a book, not just for philosophers, but for any thinking person interested in self--knowledge. The discussion is admirably engaging and down--to--earth throughout. One major aim of the book is to challenge the idea that our mode of awareness of our own attitudes differs in principle from our mode of awareness of the attitudes of others.Cassam grants that we may in fact know more than other people do about our own present beliefs, desires, and intentions, at least when these attitudes concern matters that are not bound up with our self--conception; but he denies that any such de facto asymmetry in how much we know reflects a fundamentally different mode of awareness. I discern the attitudes of other people by a kind of interpretation: I draw inferences from their words, deeds, and other expressive behavior. When I ascribe attitudes to myself, my evidence typically includes more than this, since I have access not only to such outward signs but also to my own inner monologue and whatever images or impressions may accompany it. Nevertheless, Cassam argues, I pass from this evidence to knowledge of my own attitudes by taking a step of the same broadly inferential kind as the one I take in interpreting others. The relevant inferences may occur effortlessly and automatically, and this may give us the impression that we have immediate and noninferential access our own minds; but from an epistemological perspective, attitudinal self--knowledge is no less inferential than knowledge of the attitudes of others.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.