|Appears in Collections:||Law and Philosophy Journal Articles|
|Peer Review Status:||Refereed|
|Title:||Self-knowledge and the Limits of Transparency|
|Publisher:||Oxford University Press / The Analysis Trust (previously Wiley-Blackwell)|
|Citation:||Way J (2007) Self-knowledge and the Limits of Transparency, Analysis, 67 (3), pp. 223-230.|
|Abstract:||First paragraph: It seems that many of our attitudes are transparent, in the following sense: we can come to know that we have an attitude M by considering a question about the content of M. This is clearest in the case of belief, as is illustrated by the following oft-quoted passage of Gareth Evans’s, ....in making a self-ascription of belief, one’s eyes are, so to speak, or occasionally literally, directed outward – upon the world. If someone asks me ‘Do you think there is going to be a third world war?’, I must attend, in answering him, to precisely the same outward phenomena as I would attend to if I were answering the question ‘Will there be a third world war?’ (Evans 1982: 225) But it is also true, to varying degrees, of other attitudes as well. As Dorit Bar-On points out, If asked whether I am hoping or wishing that p, whether I prefer x to y, whether I am angry at or afraid of z, and so on, my attention would be directed at p, x and y, z, etc. For example, to say how I feel about an upcoming holiday, I would consider whether the holiday is likely to be fun. Asked whether I find my neighbour annoying, I would ponder her actions and render a verdict. (Bar-On 2004: 106) This remarkable fact – that we appear to be able to answer questions directed at one subject matter by considering questions directed at another – has played a leading role in several recent accounts of self-knowledge. Thus Richard Moran claims (2001: 150) that transparency is ‘the fundamental feature of self-knowledge’, and argues at length that it is transparency that marks the difference between those attitudes which can be objects of ‘ordinary’ self- knowledge and those attitudes which can be known, if at all, only through the kind of evidence which is equally available to a third-person.1 And Moran and others also claim that understanding transparency is the key to understanding those features of ordinary self-knowledge – such as immediacy, authority, and its relation to rationality – which have traditionally seemed|
|Rights:||Published in Analysis by Oxford University Press / The Analysis Trust.; This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Analysis following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version, Analysis, Volume 67, Issue 3, pp. 223 - 230 is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/analys/67.3.223|
This item is protected by original copyright
Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.
If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.