Acting in Order to Know, Knowing in Order to Act: Sosa on Epistemic and Practical Deliberation

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Navarro, Jesús
Data de Publicação: 2016
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
Texto Completo: http://hdl.handle.net/10451/25910
Resumo: The questions ‘Do I know p?’ and ‘shall I take p as a reason to act?’ seem to belong to different domains — or so claims Ernest Sosa in his Judgment and Agency (2015), the latest version of his virtue epistemology. According to Sosa, we may formulate the first question in a purely epistemological way — a matter of knowledge “full stop” —, while the second one is necessarily intruded by pragmatic factors — a matter of “actionable knowledge”. Both should be answered, in his view, considering the reliability of my belief, but the former could be faced in total abstraction from my personal practical concerns. In this paper I dispute Sosa’s view, and claim that no purely epistemic level of knowledge “full stop” is conceivable, at least within a reliabilist framework. A case is put forward in order to show that some given belief may not be considered as reliable by itself, as a token, but always as a member of a type, belonging to some class of reference of other beliefs. And the relevant class of reference may only be chosen considering personal practical interests.
id RCAP_2f135e6cabb9ecf117139ec53cc4778b
oai_identifier_str oai:repositorio.ul.pt:10451/25910
network_acronym_str RCAP
network_name_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository_id_str 7160
spelling Acting in Order to Know, Knowing in Order to Act: Sosa on Epistemic and Practical DeliberationEpistemic rationalityPractical rationalityVirtue epistemologyPragmatic encroachmentAgent reliabilismThe questions ‘Do I know p?’ and ‘shall I take p as a reason to act?’ seem to belong to different domains — or so claims Ernest Sosa in his Judgment and Agency (2015), the latest version of his virtue epistemology. According to Sosa, we may formulate the first question in a purely epistemological way — a matter of knowledge “full stop” —, while the second one is necessarily intruded by pragmatic factors — a matter of “actionable knowledge”. Both should be answered, in his view, considering the reliability of my belief, but the former could be faced in total abstraction from my personal practical concerns. In this paper I dispute Sosa’s view, and claim that no purely epistemic level of knowledge “full stop” is conceivable, at least within a reliabilist framework. A case is put forward in order to show that some given belief may not be considered as reliable by itself, as a token, but always as a member of a type, belonging to some class of reference of other beliefs. And the relevant class of reference may only be chosen considering personal practical interests.Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Letras, Centro de FilosofiaRepositório da Universidade de LisboaNavarro, Jesús2017-01-16T10:53:00Z2016-112016-11-01T00:00:00Zinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/10451/25910eng0873-626Xinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2023-11-08T16:15:38Zoai:repositorio.ul.pt:10451/25910Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-19T21:42:39.419997Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Acting in Order to Know, Knowing in Order to Act: Sosa on Epistemic and Practical Deliberation
title Acting in Order to Know, Knowing in Order to Act: Sosa on Epistemic and Practical Deliberation
spellingShingle Acting in Order to Know, Knowing in Order to Act: Sosa on Epistemic and Practical Deliberation
Navarro, Jesús
Epistemic rationality
Practical rationality
Virtue epistemology
Pragmatic encroachment
Agent reliabilism
title_short Acting in Order to Know, Knowing in Order to Act: Sosa on Epistemic and Practical Deliberation
title_full Acting in Order to Know, Knowing in Order to Act: Sosa on Epistemic and Practical Deliberation
title_fullStr Acting in Order to Know, Knowing in Order to Act: Sosa on Epistemic and Practical Deliberation
title_full_unstemmed Acting in Order to Know, Knowing in Order to Act: Sosa on Epistemic and Practical Deliberation
title_sort Acting in Order to Know, Knowing in Order to Act: Sosa on Epistemic and Practical Deliberation
author Navarro, Jesús
author_facet Navarro, Jesús
author_role author
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv Repositório da Universidade de Lisboa
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Navarro, Jesús
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Epistemic rationality
Practical rationality
Virtue epistemology
Pragmatic encroachment
Agent reliabilism
topic Epistemic rationality
Practical rationality
Virtue epistemology
Pragmatic encroachment
Agent reliabilism
description The questions ‘Do I know p?’ and ‘shall I take p as a reason to act?’ seem to belong to different domains — or so claims Ernest Sosa in his Judgment and Agency (2015), the latest version of his virtue epistemology. According to Sosa, we may formulate the first question in a purely epistemological way — a matter of knowledge “full stop” —, while the second one is necessarily intruded by pragmatic factors — a matter of “actionable knowledge”. Both should be answered, in his view, considering the reliability of my belief, but the former could be faced in total abstraction from my personal practical concerns. In this paper I dispute Sosa’s view, and claim that no purely epistemic level of knowledge “full stop” is conceivable, at least within a reliabilist framework. A case is put forward in order to show that some given belief may not be considered as reliable by itself, as a token, but always as a member of a type, belonging to some class of reference of other beliefs. And the relevant class of reference may only be chosen considering personal practical interests.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-11
2016-11-01T00:00:00Z
2017-01-16T10:53:00Z
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/10451/25910
url http://hdl.handle.net/10451/25910
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 0873-626X
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Letras, Centro de Filosofia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Universidade de Lisboa, Faculdade de Letras, Centro de Filosofia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron:RCAAP
instname_str Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
instacron_str RCAAP
institution RCAAP
reponame_str Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
collection Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação
repository.mail.fl_str_mv
_version_ 1799134342346178560