Draft: Sosa-style Epistemic Circularity
I’ve just finished a shareable draft of my paper ‘Epistemic Circularity and Reflective Knowledge’ (commissioned for a symposium on Sosa’s Reflective Knowledge, to appear in a special issue of Philosophical Papers on the problem of the criterion, edited by Mark Nelson). Comments welcome!
Hi Charles Myro here,
If I understand Sosa correctly , seems like another way of saying that some things we perceive directly or apperceive and some things we infer or reflect about to conclusion.
But it seems to me the common basis of both of these is the same–that something shows up as the case, as the state of affairs. If it is “animal” it just shows up and if it is “reflective” –reflection to conclusion, or some such—it just shows up. One may mistake the rope for a snake in dim light in either
the animal or reflective and what comes to us as the case—in animal or reflective mode– may be subsequently abandoned for or altered by something else that seems the case.
We have nothing for truth other than what shows up as the case to us–and none of it unalterable or indubitable later on. One could ask how do we know that what shows up as the case now won’t be altered or abandoned due to something later arising as the case? —– I think nothing can eliminate that possibility of change even if we are determined to stand fast by fiat.
One may make such a distinction between animal and reflective, or animal and vegetable or whatever you want, but I think the more fundamental thing here is
that what is the case just shows up to us.
Seems absurd to ask how can we be sure that the stuff that shows up as the case to us, as the state of affairs, does show up as the case, as the state of affairs. If anything is a patent given, stuff showing up to us as the case surely is a patent given. But what is the given now, the case now, may not be down the road.
How would one form by reflection any basis for confirming anything that shows up to us as the case, other than by more stuff that shows up as the case? Seems we don’t escape that fundamental patent stuff no matter what or how we seek proof or confirmation. Our assumption is to seek for something to arise to us that is the case, and that will be what we go with, whether we are confirmed in what is the case or confirmed in our denial or doubt or qualification about what is the case. We expect and are looking for something to arise within us that says what is the state of affairs.
And this is so whether one espouses an external world that we represent or one is a radical solipsist, and whether you are or are not being “animal” or “reflective”.
We can say that what is the case to us, say y, is confirmed by z and z by p and p by m and m by x and so on ad infinitum, theoretically at least, and make accusation of circularity — things being defined by other things and so on–and say therefore this knowledge is faulty or wrong or disingenuous or something or other—but -this seems silly to me. Silly because the very nature of what comes to us as the case—-is that it comes to us as the case!
What else do we have for truth but what shows up as the case? And what is it that shows up that is not alterable later? No, it seems to me it is not dubitable that what shows up as the case to us does show up as the case to us–this is fundamental in practice and in thought, what is dubitable is
that what shows up now as so will be so in future.
It seems odd then to surmise that if we could just get rid of this pesky circularity and regression we could then have a solid kind of knowledge. To say this is, to me, like saying: “if we only could confirm our seeing a color by another method than seeing the color, then we would have solid knowledge of it”. To fault such a situation by its circularity or regression potential, really, seems misplaced at minimum; it is to misunderstand the situation.
Yes, I know all this is a bit off topic —but it seems fundamental to me. I can’t help it. If I have mistaken Sosa’s meaning, forgive me. Still, I hold that my comments are relevant to the general issue and I hope they are in some measure helpful to your enterprise, off the cuff as they are.
n the