Thinking With Assent

Thinking with Assent

Epistemology is currently in ferment. Ever since Plato, the textbook story goes, knowledge has been conceived as justified true belief; but in 1963 Edmund Gettier blew a huge hole in this supposedly traditional account. Six decades later, however, ongoing attempts to identify the conditions which turn belief into knowledge continue to face counterexamples and charges of circularity. In response to this recurrent failure, leading philosophers have begun exploring alternative accounts of knowledge. This ground-breaking book pushes the revolt against post-Gettier epistemology in a radically new direction. It begins by challenging the crude history of philosophy underling the entire Gettier paradigm. A survey ranging from the pre-Socratics to the mid-twentieth century reveals that the allegedly 'standard' or 'traditional' analysis of knowledge is neither standard nor traditional. In fact, it is difficult to find major philosophers for thousands of years who regarded knowledge as a species of belief, or belief as entailed by knowledge. The standard view was rather that knowing and believing are distinct, mutually exclusive mental states, involving different mental faculties, and playing distinct and complementary roles in our cognitive lives. Having demolished the historical premise upon which the entire Gettier paradigm rests, this book reframes elements of this age-old consensus in contemporary terms which push 'knowledge first' epistemology in a fresh direction. Knowledge, Antognazza argues, is phenomenologically and ontologically prior to belief, and, crucially, is not a kind of belief - not even “the best kind”. In turn, “mere believing” is not “a kind of botched knowing” but a mental state fundamentally different from knowing, with its own crucial and distinctive role in our cognitive life. Contrary to the claim that belief aims at knowledge, the specific contribution of belief to our cognition is that of aiming at truth when knowledge is out of our cognitive reach. Knowing and believing are mutually exclusive but complementary ways of 'thinking with assent'. The book then applies this renewed paradigm to range of controversial issues, including the taxonomy of belief, the role of the will in belief, testimony, collective knowledge, and religious epistemology. Applying innovative methods to a vast range of materials on a rich variety of topics, this is a rare philosopher and a work of exceptional interest. Applying innovative methods to a vast range of materials on a rich variety of topics, this is a rare philosopher and a work of exceptional interest.

Cardozo and Frontiers of Legal Thinking

Knowing and Seeing

What is knowledge? What, if anything, can we know? In Knowing and Seeing, Michael Ayers recovers the insight in the traditional distinction between knowledge and belief, according to which 'knowledge' stems from direct and perspicuous cognitive contact with ('seeing') its object, whereas 'belief' relies on 'extraneous' justification. He conducts a careful phenomenological analysis of what it is to perceive one's environment as one's environment, the result of which is not only direct realism, but recognition that in being perceptually aware of anything we are at the same time perceptually aware of how we are aware of it. Perceptual knowing comes with knowing how you know. Some other forms of knowledge are similarly direct and perspicuous, but not all; a distinction is accordingly drawn between primary and secondary knowledge, and Ayers argues that no secondary knowledge is possible without some primary knowledge. Perceptual knowledge supplies the paradigm to which other cases of knowledge are diversely analogous - hence the notorious difficulty of defining knowledge. These conclusions, supported by a detailed examination of the relations between different grammatical constructions in which 'know', 'believe' and 'see' occur, fuel extended critiques of two lines of thought influential in contemporary epistemology: John McDowell's conceptualist and intellectualist account of perceptual knowledge, and Fred Dretske's 'externalist' employment of sceptical argument. Ayers unpicks the arguments for these other views, explains the failure of recent attempts at a comprehensive definition of knowledge, explores the tight relation between knowledge and certainty, and gives an account of how 'defeasibility' should and should not be understood in epistemology.