Need knowing and acting be SSS‐Safe ?

IF 0.7 2区 哲学 Q1 Arts and Humanities
Jaakko Hirvelä, Niall J. Paterson
{"title":"Need knowing and acting be\n SSS‐Safe\n ?","authors":"Jaakko Hirvelä, Niall J. Paterson","doi":"10.1002/THT3.487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Throughout the years, Sosa has taken different views on the safety condition on knowledge. In his early work, he endorsed the safety condition, but later ret-racted this view when first developing his much dis-cussed virtue epistemology. Recently, Sosa has further developed his virtue theory with the notion of competence and has developed an accompanying, modified safety condition that he maintains is entailed by that theory: the SSS-safety condition. Sosa's view is that this condition holds on both knowledge and action, because both knowledge and action are the manifestations of competence. The SSS-safety condition, roughly, says that if S were to make an attempt at φ -ing under certain specified shape-situation pairs, holding fixed their seat , then S would φ . The argument of this paper is that this new SSS-safety condition does not hold on either knowledge or action. We argue for this conclusion by providing a principled way to generate counterexamples to the condition for both knowledge and action. The reasoning is that there can exist a non-empty symmetric difference between the sets of shape-situation pairs under which distinct agents can manifest their","PeriodicalId":44963,"journal":{"name":"Thought-A Journal of Philosophy","volume":"10 1","pages":"127-134"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1002/THT3.487","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Thought-A Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/THT3.487","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Throughout the years, Sosa has taken different views on the safety condition on knowledge. In his early work, he endorsed the safety condition, but later ret-racted this view when first developing his much dis-cussed virtue epistemology. Recently, Sosa has further developed his virtue theory with the notion of competence and has developed an accompanying, modified safety condition that he maintains is entailed by that theory: the SSS-safety condition. Sosa's view is that this condition holds on both knowledge and action, because both knowledge and action are the manifestations of competence. The SSS-safety condition, roughly, says that if S were to make an attempt at φ -ing under certain specified shape-situation pairs, holding fixed their seat , then S would φ . The argument of this paper is that this new SSS-safety condition does not hold on either knowledge or action. We argue for this conclusion by providing a principled way to generate counterexamples to the condition for both knowledge and action. The reasoning is that there can exist a non-empty symmetric difference between the sets of shape-situation pairs under which distinct agents can manifest their
需要知道和行动是安全的吗?
多年来,索萨对知识的安全条件有不同的看法。在他早期的工作中,他赞同安全条件,但后来在他最初发展他的被广泛讨论的美德认识论时,他撤回了这一观点。最近,索萨用能力的概念进一步发展了他的美德理论,并发展了一个伴随的、修正的安全条件,他认为这是该理论所必需的:sss安全条件。索萨认为,这一条件对知识和行动都适用,因为知识和行动都是能力的表现。sss安全条件,大致表示,如果S在特定的形状-情况对下尝试φ -ing,并保持固定的位置,则S将φ。本文的论点是,这种新的sss安全条件既不符合知识,也不符合行动。我们通过提供一种原则性的方法来为知识和行动的条件生成反例来论证这一结论。其理由是在形状-情境对的集合之间可以存在非空的对称差异,在这种差异下,不同的主体可以表现出它们的形状-情境对
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊介绍: Thought: A Journal of Philosophy is dedicated to the publication of short (of less than 4500 words), original, philosophical papers in the following areas: Logic, Philosophy of Maths, Philosophy of Mind, Epistemology, Philosophy of Language, Metaphysics, and Value Theory. All published papers will be analytic in style. We intend that readers of Thought will be exposed to the most central and significant issues and positions in contemporary philosophy that fall under its remit. We will publish only papers that exemplify the highest standard of clarity. Thought aims to give a response to all authors within eight weeks of submission. Thought employs a triple-blind review system: the author''s identity is not revealed to the editors and referees, and the referee''s identity is not revealed to the author. Every submitted paper is appraised by the Subject Editor of the relevant subject area. Papers that pass to the editors are read by at least two experts in the relevant subject area.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信