Analysis of “Knowing What You Believe” by Quassim Cassam
Introduction:
In the article “Knowing What You Believe” by Quassim Cassam talks about how the transparency account doesn’t support epistemically immediate. He defends the views about that the belief of P is epistemically inferential and therefore not immediate, which he bases it the transparency. Cassam starts by defining the notion of transparency and gives three questions in which he plans to answer. Then he continues on to talk about passive thoughts and epistemically immediate definition. In this paper, I shall argue that the transparency account does support epistemically immediate.
Summary:
Quassim Cassam “argues that the transparency account can’t explain how knowledge of our own beliefs can be epistemically immediate”. The notion of transparency given by Richard Moran is the “idea a person answers the question whether he believes that P in the same way he would address himself to the question whether P itself”(Cassam 2). In which, the question about ‘Do you believe that P? can be transparent to the question ‘Is it the case that P?’ Cassam brings up the transparency explains immediacy theory (TEI). The TEI doesn’t apply to the passing thoughts if it applies to the beliefs. There’s three questions in which he is prepared to answer: “1. Is the immediacy thesis …show more content…
Cassam gives an example, where a person believes in P by following the transparency method only if by doing this, there’s a certain justification for believing in P. When you rely on the transparency, which would give justification for believing in P that comes from a part of my justification to believe at least another proposition, which will be the linking assumption. Considering this, P is epistemically inferential and not immediate, when it’s based on the transparency
Introduction:
In the article “Knowing What You Believe” by Quassim Cassam talks about how the transparency account doesn’t support epistemically immediate. He defends the views about that the belief of P is epistemically inferential and therefore not immediate, which he bases it the transparency. Cassam starts by defining the notion of transparency and gives three questions in which he plans to answer. Then he continues on to talk about passive thoughts and epistemically immediate definition. In this paper, I shall argue that the transparency account does support epistemically immediate.
Summary:
Quassim Cassam “argues that the transparency account can’t explain how knowledge of our own beliefs can be epistemically immediate”. The notion of transparency given by Richard Moran is the “idea a person answers the question whether he believes that P in the same way he would address himself to the question whether P itself”(Cassam 2). In which, the question about ‘Do you believe that P? can be transparent to the question ‘Is it the case that P?’ Cassam brings up the transparency explains immediacy theory (TEI). The TEI doesn’t apply to the passing thoughts if it applies to the beliefs. There’s three questions in which he is prepared to answer: “1. Is the immediacy thesis …show more content…
Cassam gives an example, where a person believes in P by following the transparency method only if by doing this, there’s a certain justification for believing in P. When you rely on the transparency, which would give justification for believing in P that comes from a part of my justification to believe at least another proposition, which will be the linking assumption. Considering this, P is epistemically inferential and not immediate, when it’s based on the transparency