Knowledge

Abstract

Chapter 5 begins by showing how the explanatory demand with regard to knowledge—what is it in virtue of which a given state is a state of knowledge?—drives so much work in epistemology. As in the cases of the chapters on substance and action, this chapter argues that leading theories of knowledge all fail to meet this explanatory demand. Theories examined include contextualist and non-contextualist theories, as well as knowledge-first theories. Authors criticized include Goldman, Dretske, DeRose, Lewis, Stanley, and Williamson. With the help of another Bradleyan regress argument, the underlying problem in each case is revealed to be the presupposition that one is dealing with differentiated or relational knowledge. As before, the way out of these difficulties is to make a Parmenidean Ascent with regard to knowledge: all is knowledge and there is no differentiated knowledge.