This article discusses the notion of transparency condition proposed by Richard Moran in Authority and Estrangement (2001). According to this notion the question in the first-person present tense about our own belief ("Do I believe in p?") is answered in reference with the same reasons that justify the answer to a corresponding question about the world (about the truth of p). Transparency, in this sense, is the fundamental characteristic of self-knowledge in the context of common experience. Understanding this idea helps (...) us to understand the notions which are normally associated to self-knowledge, such as immediacy (we do not need to turn to observation or inference) first-person authority (I have different access to my attitudes than other people do) and the relationship between self-knowledge, rationality and psychic health of a person. Through the presentation of the transparency condition and some objections to this notion, I aim to offer an interpretation of the notion of transparency which favors a modest conception of self-knowledge and rationality. (shrink)

The objective of this paper is to apply the general idea of contextualism, as a theory of knowledge attribution, to the very specific case of testimony and trust characterized as being the procedure of the attribution of knowledge (and sincerity) to the informant. In the first part, I argue in favor of evidentialism, a viewpoint that takes epistemically responsible trust as a matter of evidence. In the second part, I consider the question of how strong an evidential basis has to (...) be for epistemically responsible trust. I have briefly registered two main tendencies in contemporary debates regarding trust and testimony: (i) the non-unitary character of our trust; (ii) and the requirement for a refinement of evidential standards. In short, I argue in favor of the stance that any ‘undiscriminatory generalization’ (both Redian or anti-reductivist and Humean or reductivist) concerning epistemically responsible trust is a kind of inappropriate theoretical idealization, and that a certain theoretical reconciliation has to be offered. Finally, in the third part, I propose trust-contextualism as the viewpoint that optimally harmonizes both our intuitive and theoretical requirements about epistemically responsible trust. (shrink)

This paper addresses two worries that might be raised about contextualism in epistemology and that carry over to its moral analogues: that contextualism robs epistemology (and moral theory) of a proper subject-matter, and that contextualism robs knowledge claims (and moral claims) of their objectivity. Two theses are defended: (1) that these worries are appropriately directed at interestdependent theories in general rather than at contextualism in particular, and (2) that the two worries are over-stated in any case. Finally, the paper offers (...) some considerations in favour of attributor contextualism over 'subject-sensitive invariantism', both in epistemology and in moral theory. But here we note an interesting result: the very considerations that support contextualism as a semantic thesis, threaten to rob that position of its anti-sceptical force. (shrink)

Externalism about knowledge commits one to a modest form of contextualism: whether one knows depends (or may depend) on circumstances (context) of which one has no knowledge. Such modest contextualism requires the rejection of the KK Principle (If S knows that P, then S knows that S knows that P) - something most people would want to reject anyway - but it does not require (though it is compatible with) a rejection of closure. Radical contextualism, on the other hand, goes (...) a step farther and relativizes knowledge not just to the circumstances of the knower, but to the circumstances of the person attributing knowledge. I reject this more radical form of contextualism and suggest that it confuses (or that it can, at least, be avoided by carefully distinguishing) the relativity in what S is said to know from the relativity in whether S knows what S is said to know. (shrink)

Malcolm's discussion of memory is the most detailed and comprehensive in recent philosophical literature, but it does not result in a philosophical theory of memory or even an "analysis of the concept" of memory. Denying that the word "memory" has a "unified employment," Malcolm spends most of his time exposing mistakes and confusions in what philosophers and psychologists have said about memory. He begins by attacking the common assumption that memory is focused exclusively on the past. Although we may remember (...) what we have seen or done, we may also remember a face or town that we are now seeing, and we may even remember that we have an appointment today or an exam tomorrow. The connection these "objects" of memory have with the past is that, if we do remember them, we must have known them, been acquainted with them, or, as in the case of remembering how to make soup, been able to do them in the past. (shrink)

This paper surveys the impact on neuropsychology of Wittgenstein's elucidations of memory. Wittgenstein discredited the storage and imprint models of memory, dissolved the conceptual link between memory and mental images or representations and, upholding the context-sensitivity of memory, made room for a family resemblance concept of memory, where remembering can also amount to doing or saying something. While neuropsychology is still generally under the spell of archival and physiological notions of memory, Wittgenstein's reconceptions can be seen at work in its (...) leading-edge practitioners. However, neuroscientists, generally, are finding memory difficult to demarcate from other cognitive and noncognitive processes, and I suggest this is largely due to their considering automatic responses as part of memory, termed nondeclarative or implicit memory. Taking my lead from Wittgenstein's On Certainty, I argue that there is only remembering where there is also some kind of mnemonic effort or attention, and, therefore, that so-called implicit memory is not memory at all, but a basic, noncognitive certainty. (shrink)