Knowledge is a mental state (at least sometimes)

It is widely held in philosophy that knowing is not a state of mind. On this view, rather than knowledge itself constituting a mental state, when we know, we occupy a belief state that exhibits some additional non-mental characteristics. Fascinatingly, however, new empirical findings from cognitive neuroscience and experimental philosophy now offer direct, converging evidence that the brain can—and often does—treat knowledge as if it is a mental state in its own right. While some might be tempted to keep the metaphysics of epistemic states separate from the neurocognitive mechanics of our judgements about them, here I will argue that these empirical findings give us sufficient reason to conclude that knowledge is at least sometimes a mental state. The basis of this argument is the epistemological principle of neurocognitive parity—roughly, if the contents of a given judgement reflect the structure of knowledge, so do the neurocognitive mechanics that produced them. This principle, which I defend here, straightforwardly supports the inference from the empirical observation that the brain sometimes treats knowledge like a mental state to the epistemological conclusion that knowledge is at least sometimes a mental state. All told, the composite, belief-centric metaphysics of knowledge widely assumed in epistemology is almost certainly mistaken.

Shapeshifters and Colombe’s Folds

The collaboration between William Forsythe and Issey Miyake in Ballett Frankfurt’s The Loss of Small Detail (1991) includes the Colombe dress, used in the finale of the first act, “the second detail.” If seen as a parallel choreographic object in Forsythe’s work, Miyake’s Colombe as “one piece of cloth” concept suggests the fold (Deleuze, 1993) as a potent epistemological principle that unites various versions of the work. Used in the solo dance that bridges two acts, the Colombe dress via the figure of fold visually hints at Forsythe’s choreographic gestures that open out balletic épaulement through “disfocus.” When Miyake’s and Forsythe’s topological gestures are juxtaposed, their discrete works reveal analogous shapeshifting that promotes multidirectional links between ballet and fashion as artistic forms that use historical and cultural frictions to fold into contemporaneity.

Husserl’s Project of Ultimate Elucidation and the Principle of All Principles

It is well known that Husserl considered phenomenology to be First Philosophy—the ultimate science. For Husserl, this means that phenomenology must clarify the ultimate phenomenological-epistemological principle that leads to ultimate elucidation. But what is this ultimate principle and what does ultimate elucidation mean? It is the aim of this paper to answer these questions. In section 2, we shall discuss what role Husserl’s principle of all principles can play in the quest for ultimate elucidation and what it means for a principle to be ultimately elucidating (letztaufklärend) and ultimately elucidated (letztaufgeklärt). We will see that the Husserlian thesis that originary presentive intuitions are an immediate and the ultimate source of justification qualifies as the ultimate epistemological principle.

¿Existe conocimiento epistémicamente irracional?

I present an epistemological puzzle about perceptual knowledge and its relation to the evaluation of probabilities. It involves cases, concerning a given subject S and a proposition P in a determinate context, where apparently: S has perceptual knowledge of P; the epistemic justification S has for believing Not-P is much greater than her epistemic justification for believing P. If those two theses were true, the following very plausible epistemological principle would fail: If S knows P, then the epistemic justification S has for believing Not-P is not greater than her epistemic justification for believing P. I offer a solution to the puzzle, which is compatible with basic intuitions and theses of orthodox Bayesianism.

Qur’anic Pictures of the Universe: The Scriptural Foundation of Islamic Cosmology

The Qur’an, the divinely revealed scripture of Islam, is not merely a book of commandments and prohibitions. Rather, the bulk of the Qur’an is related to faith: divinely communicated answers to existential questions about the origin of life and universe, the place of humankind in the cosmos, the relation between human, cosmos, and Creator, and more. The Islamic viewpoint regarding the nature, origin, and destiny of the universe in relation with the Creator forms the subject matter of Islamic cosmology, and of this book.This book is part of the author’s larger, yet-unpublished project on the scientific exegesis of the Qur’an. Maintaining that the Qur’an presents multiple pictures of the universe, instead of a single monolithic picture, the author has divided the main content of the book into seven chapters among which the last five elaborate such “pictures”. These include the astronomical picture (chapter three), the architectural picture (chapter four), the picture of the cosmos as a divine kingdom (chapter five), the universe as a world of lights and darknesses (chapter six), and the human microcosm in the Qur’an (chapter seven). The first two chapters are concerned with Qur’anic definitions of the universe (chapter one) and an explanation for the multiplicity of Qur’anic pictures of the cosmos (chapter two). The book also includes an introduction, a bibliography (short but inclusive of the indispensable references), and a helpful index. The author’s method of arriving at a particular picture of the universe consists of a synthetic approach to the related verses dispersed in the different chapters of the Qur’an but unified thematically in a coherent way. The author himself argues that “the Qur’an features the Universe and its numerous pictures and images as one of its most attractive and interesting themes for human reflection and contemplation and scientific study” (4). Preferring the thematic and synthetic approach that is reflective of Islam’s holistic epistemology to the “piecemeal exegesis of one or two so-called cosmic or creation verses” as usually inspired by the reductionist epistemology of modern science, the author has blended revealed metaphysical data with empirical scientific data to portray different harmonious images of the universe. The author’s thematic engagement of the related Qur’anic verses and their synthesis into a coherent portrait of the Universe is intellectually stimulating and spiritually enlightening. In all this, the author has employed, as the central epistemological principle, the concept of “God’s Self Disclosure” as propounded by the celebrated esoteric exegete of Islam, Ibn ‘Arabi. According to this principle, the diversity in creation is actually reflective of God’s numerous attributes. Hence, the multiple pictures of the universe. In the first chapter of the book, the author elaborates Arabic terms (e.g., ‘ālamīn, khalq, kawn) used in the Qur’an in relation to the cosmos.The author engages their linguistic (lexical/semantic) details, their frequency in the Qur’an, and the relation between their first and last occurrence in the Qur’anic text. The chapter is loaded with insightful information on these verses from linguistic, thematic, and theological-philosophical perspectives; he seeks to arrive at metaphysical conclusions from etymological discussions, bridging a simple science with a complex one. In the following chapter, the author grapples with the cosmic unity in diversity, the multiple human visions of the universe despite its single divine vision, and the many subsystems of the universe (the angelic world, the human world, etc.) in order to justify the multiplicity of the Qur’anic pictures of the universe. In my humble opinion, this chapter is too short to satisfy this question; further, the reader may get confused regarding the relationship between the arguments and the conclusion. For example, while the author draws mainly on the Qur’anic word ‘ālamīn—interestingly, a morphological plural—to substantiate the multiplicity of the images of the universe in the Qur’an, he himself accepts that the Qur’an uses this word to mean the entire cosmos (27). The remaining five chapters of the book detail different Qur’anic terms and verses related to the cosmos, yielding the five “pictures” enumerated earlier. The discussion largely comprises thematic treatment of different related verses coupled with linguistic, theological/metaphysical, and scientific explanations. Yet what remains unanswered and intriguing is how far the Qur’anic pictures of the Universe correspond to modern scientific cosmology. What accounts for the Qur’anic style of allusive, cursory mentionof such cosmic terms? Are there layers of meaning in these verses which obtain variously for different audiences? How did the earlier generations of Muslims—especially the Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him—understand such verses? In sum, the book is a welcome contribution to the genre of scientific Qur’anic exegesis in general, and Qur’anic cosmology in particular. In my humble opinion, it is a must read for the students and scholars of Islamic Studies as well as those of other related fields. Gowhar Quadir WaniPhD candida Islamic Studies,ligarh Muslim University

Qur’anic Pictures of the Universe: The Scriptural Foundation of Islamic Cosmology

The Qur’an, the divinely revealed scripture of Islam, is not merely a book of commandments and prohibitions. Rather, the bulk of the Qur’an is related to faith: divinely communicated answers to existential questions about the origin of life and universe, the place of humankind in the cosmos, the relation between human, cosmos, and Creator, and more. The Islamic viewpoint regarding the nature, origin, and destiny of the universe in relation with the Creator forms the subject matter of Islamic cosmology, and of this book.This book is part of the author’s larger, yet-unpublished project on the scientific exegesis of the Qur’an. Maintaining that the Qur’an presents multiple pictures of the universe, instead of a single monolithic picture, the author has divided the main content of the book into seven chapters among which the last five elaborate such “pictures”. These include the astronomical picture (chapter three), the architectural picture (chapter four), the picture of the cosmos as a divine kingdom (chapter five), the universe as a world of lights and darknesses (chapter six), and the human microcosm in the Qur’an (chapter seven). The first two chapters are concerned with Qur’anic definitions of the universe (chapter one) and an explanation for the multiplicity of Qur’anic pictures of the cosmos (chapter two). The book also includes an introduction, a bibliography (short but inclusive of the indispensable references), and a helpful index. The author’s method of arriving at a particular picture of the universe consists of a synthetic approach to the related verses dispersed in the different chapters of the Qur’an but unified thematically in a coherent way. The author himself argues that “the Qur’an features the Universe and its numerous pictures and images as one of its most attractive and interesting themes for human reflection and contemplation and scientific study” (4). Preferring the thematic and synthetic approach that is reflective of Islam’s holistic epistemology to the “piecemeal exegesis of one or two so-called cosmic or creation verses” as usually inspired by the reductionist epistemology of modern science, the author has blended revealed metaphysical data with empirical scientific data to portray different harmonious images of the universe. The author’s thematic engagement of the related Qur’anic verses and their synthesis into a coherent portrait of the Universe is intellectually stimulating and spiritually enlightening. In all this, the author has employed, as the central epistemological principle, the concept of “God’s Self Disclosure” as propounded by the celebrated esoteric exegete of Islam, Ibn ‘Arabi. According to this principle, the diversity in creation is actually reflective of God’s numerous attributes. Hence, the multiple pictures of the universe. In the first chapter of the book, the author elaborates Arabic terms (e.g., ‘ālamīn, khalq, kawn) used in the Qur’an in relation to the cosmos.The author engages their linguistic (lexical/semantic) details, their frequency in the Qur’an, and the relation between their first and last occurrence in the Qur’anic text. The chapter is loaded with insightful information on these verses from linguistic, thematic, and theological-philosophical perspectives; he seeks to arrive at metaphysical conclusions from etymological discussions, bridging a simple science with a complex one. In the following chapter, the author grapples with the cosmic unity in diversity, the multiple human visions of the universe despite its single divine vision, and the many subsystems of the universe (the angelic world, the human world, etc.) in order to justify the multiplicity of the Qur’anic pictures of the universe. In my humble opinion, this chapter is too short to satisfy this question; further, the reader may get confused regarding the relationship between the arguments and the conclusion. For example, while the author draws mainly on the Qur’anic word ‘ālamīn—interestingly, a morphological plural—to substantiate the multiplicity of the images of the universe in the Qur’an, he himself accepts that the Qur’an uses this word to mean the entire cosmos (27). The remaining five chapters of the book detail different Qur’anic terms and verses related to the cosmos, yielding the five “pictures” enumerated earlier. The discussion largely comprises thematic treatment of different related verses coupled with linguistic, theological/metaphysical, and scientific explanations. Yet what remains unanswered and intriguing is how far the Qur’anic pictures of the Universe correspond to modern scientific cosmology. What accounts for the Qur’anic style of allusive, cursory mentionof such cosmic terms? Are there layers of meaning in these verses which obtain variously for different audiences? How did the earlier generations of Muslims—especially the Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings upon him—understand such verses? In sum, the book is a welcome contribution to the genre of scientific Qur’anic exegesis in general, and Qur’anic cosmology in particular. In my humble opinion, it is a must read for the students and scholars of Islamic Studies as well as those of other related fields. Gowhar Quadir WaniPhD candida Islamic Studies,ligarh Muslim University

The principle of deductive closure of knowledge and contextualism

The hypotheses of radical skeptics are so conceived to put the attributor of knowledge in such position that she can?t ascribe knowledge to anyone, because the subject can?t get proper evidence to exclude skeptical alternatives. There are several versions of the skeptical arguments by which she tries to point out the impossibility of knowledge ascriptions as direct consequence of the impossibility to rule out skeptical alternatives. All of those arguments are based on a very intuitive epistemological principle: if we know p, and if we know that p implies q, then we know q as well. This principle is called the principle of deductive closure of knowledge (or simply closure). In this paper, the author analyzes the most important contextualist solutions to the skeptic paradox, those that accept the closure principle, and those that reject it as well.

The concept of reduction in the Edmund Husserl’s The Idea of Phenomenology

This article presents the concept of phenomenological reduction Edmund Husserl’s “Idea of phenomenology”. In the first part I present the specifics of the phenomenological method compared to natural sciences. In the next part I characterize the fundamental assumptions about Husserl's understanding of the concept of phenomenological reduction. Next, I emphasize and explain the issues of the main epistemological principle. In the last part I interpret the reduction as a procedure leading to the essence of the phenomenon, but also what constitutes its basis, to “givenness “, what Jean-Luc Marion calls donation.

The Epistemic Norms of Action

Chapter 6 concerns the normative relationship between action and knowledge ascriptions. Arguments are provided against a Knowledge Norm of Action (KNAC) and in favor of the Warrant-Action norm (WA). According to WA, S must be adequately warranted in believing that p relative to her deliberative context to meet the epistemic requirements for acting on p. WA is developed by specifying the deliberative context and by arguing that its explanatory power exceeds that of knowledge norms. A general conclusion is that the knowledge norm is an important example of a folk epistemological principle that does not pass muster as an epistemological principle. More generally, Chapter 6 introduces the debates about epistemic normativity and develops a specific epistemic norm of action.