Two Russellian Arguments for Acquaintance

Australasian Journal of Philosophy 95 (3):461-474 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Bertrand Russell [1912] argued that we are acquainted with our experiences. Although this conclusion has generated a lot of discussion, very little has been said about Russell's actual arguments for it. This paper aims to remedy that. I start by spelling out two Russellian arguments for acquaintance. Then I show that these arguments cannot both succeed. For if one is sound, the other isn't. Finally, I weigh our options with respect to these arguments, and defend one option in particular. I argue that we have good reason to believe that we can be, and sometimes are, acquainted with our experiences.
No keywords specified (fix it)
Reprint years
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
Archival date: 2021-11-11
View other versions
Added to PP index

Total views
94 ( #47,962 of 65,536 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
13 ( #47,972 of 65,536 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.