Armchair Access and Imagination

Q2 Arts and Humanities DIALECTICA Pub Date : 2019-05-29 DOI:10.1111/1746-8361.12249
Giada Fratantonio
{"title":"Armchair Access and Imagination","authors":"Giada Fratantonio","doi":"10.1111/1746-8361.12249","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In this paper, I focus on the Armchair Access Problem for E=K as presented by Nicholas Silins, and I argue, <i>contra</i> Silins, that it does not represent a real threat to E=K. More precisely, I put forward two lines of response, both of which put pressure on the main assumption of the argument, namely, the Armchair Access thesis. The first line of response focuses on its scope, while the second line of response focuses on its nature. The second line of response is the most interesting one, for it represents the framework within which I develop a novel account of second-order knowledge, one that involves evaluation of counterfactual conditionals and the employment of our imaginative capacities, i.e., an imagination-based account of second-order knowledge. The two lines of response are shown to be jointly compatible and mutually supportive. I then conclude that the Armchair Access Problem is not a challenge for E=K, yet it relies on the ambiguity of the notion of armchair knowledge underpinning the Armchair Access thesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":46676,"journal":{"name":"DIALECTICA","volume":"72 4","pages":"525-547"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1746-8361.12249","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"DIALECTICA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1746-8361.12249","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

In this paper, I focus on the Armchair Access Problem for E=K as presented by Nicholas Silins, and I argue, contra Silins, that it does not represent a real threat to E=K. More precisely, I put forward two lines of response, both of which put pressure on the main assumption of the argument, namely, the Armchair Access thesis. The first line of response focuses on its scope, while the second line of response focuses on its nature. The second line of response is the most interesting one, for it represents the framework within which I develop a novel account of second-order knowledge, one that involves evaluation of counterfactual conditionals and the employment of our imaginative capacities, i.e., an imagination-based account of second-order knowledge. The two lines of response are shown to be jointly compatible and mutually supportive. I then conclude that the Armchair Access Problem is not a challenge for E=K, yet it relies on the ambiguity of the notion of armchair knowledge underpinning the Armchair Access thesis.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
扶手椅与想象力
在本文中,我将重点放在Nicholas Silins提出的E=K的扶手椅访问问题上,并且我认为,与Silins相反,它并不代表对E=K的真正威胁。更准确地说,我提出了两条回应路线,这两条路线都对论点的主要假设,即扶手椅理论提出了压力。第一行反应侧重于其范围,而第二行反应侧重于其性质。第二行回答是最有趣的,因为它代表了我对二阶知识的新描述的框架,其中包括对反事实条件的评估和我们想象力的运用,也就是说,对二阶知识的基于想象的描述。这两种反应方式是相互兼容和相互支持的。然后我得出结论,扶手椅访问问题不是E=K的挑战,但它依赖于支撑扶手椅访问论文的扶手椅知识概念的模糊性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
DIALECTICA
DIALECTICA PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Dialectica publishes first-rate articles predominantly in theoretical and systematic philosophy. It is edited in Switzerland and has a focus on analytical philosophy undertaken on the continent. Continuing the work of its founding members, dialectica seeks a better understanding of the mutual support between science and philosophy that both disciplines need and enjoy in their common search for understanding.
期刊最新文献
Biosafety Considerations for Viral Vector Gene Therapy: An Explanation and Guide for the Average Everyday-Hero Pharmacist. Robinson's Regress Argument from Vagueness to Dualism David Armstrong on the Metaphysics of Mathematics Are There Occurrent Continuants? Review of Willaschek (2018)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1