Philosophy Lexicon of Arguments

Screenshot Tabelle Begriffe

Knowledge: Knowledge is a conscious relationship to sentences or propositions, which legitimately attributes to them truth or falsehood. What is known is true. Conversely, it does not apply that everything that is true is also known. See also knowledge how, propositional knowledge, realism, abilities, competence, truth, facts, situations, language, certainty, beliefs, omniscience, logical knowledge, reliability

Annotation: The above characterizations of concepts are neither definitions nor exhausting presentations of problems related to them. Instead, they are intended to give a short introduction to the contributions below. – Lexicon of Arguments.

Author Item Summary Meta data
II R. M. Hare Philosophische Entdeckungen in Grewendorf/Meggle(Hg) Linguistik und Philosophie, Frankfurt (Athenäum) 1974/1995

Grewendorf II 142
Knowledge/Saying/Ryle: It may be that we know something without being able to say what we know. E.g. How a particular word is used, or a particular dance is danced.
HenleVsRyle: but this should not be extended to speech situations.
II 143
It is by no means clear that one can always know how a word is used, even if one cannot say how it is used.

Knowledge/Saying/HareVsHenle: in language, however, this is perhaps clearer than anywhere else.
E.g. If we explain the use of an expression, we do not have to use it ourselves. Consequently, we can fully know its use in all contexts, even without being able to say how it is needed.
For example, a child may have learned the use of the word "father", and use it correctly, but perhaps cannot tell how it is used because it has not yet learned the use of "to mean"!

Henle confuses the ability
"to decide for logical reasons" whether a statement is true to use the term with the ability
"the statement is logically true".
Confusion/mentioning/use: (Doing without knowledge).
Hare: anyone who does not know how to use the term "logical true" could do the former, but not the latter.
Grewendorf II
Menon/Socrates: Question: What is the good? Menon: how can you look for something if you do not know what you are looking for, and when you have found it, how do you know it is what you were looking for? (Knowledge/saying).
II 151
Socrates: if we already knew, we would not have asked the first question. So philosophizing can never begin, or it can never lead to a conclusion.
Solution/Hare: the solution lies in the distinction between knowing how a dance goes and the ability to also tell how it goes. Before beginning the investigation, we can do the former but not the latter. We could start because we could do the former all the time.
VsMenon: you already know what the good is, i.e. you can pick it out.

Explanation of symbols: Roman numerals indicate the source, arabic numerals indicate the page number. The corresponding books are indicated on the right hand side. ((s)…): Comment by the sender of the contribution.

Hare I
Richard Mervyn Hare
The Language of Morals Oxford 1991

Meg II
G. Grewendorf/G. Meggle
Linguistik und Philosophie Frankfurt 1995

Send Link
> Counter arguments against Hare
> Counter arguments in relation to Knowledge ...

Authors A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

Concepts A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   Z  

> Export as BibTeX Datei
Legal Notice & Contact   Data protection declaration

Ed. Martin Schulz, access date 2018-06-20