Of course. Since, you cannot know you know unless you first know.

And you may not know that you know S (you know that you know P).

Is that possible?

I don't think so.

But that isn't the issue.

The issue is that fast believes that you cannot know you know, unless you first know what knowledge is. And I don't think that's true. I think you can know you know something without knowing what knowledge is.

Though knowing the conditions of knowledge helps with being justified in claiming that one know that one knows that P.

And the reason would be because the justification has to be supporting what we are claiming to know. If we claim to know P (Quito is the capital of Ecuador), then an authority (atlas) may bolster our justfication. And since, here, we are claiming we know we know something, we must look at what we're claiming we know - that we know (just as we must for all I know X claims). So to seek justification for S (I know that I know), we must seek something detailing and supporting knowing, just as when we sought justification for Quito, we sought something detailing and supporting Quito.

Eh, I think this was a muddy explanation. Sorry.

Yes it was, but I knew what you meant so that didn't matter. :bigsmile:

I'll take the easy way out and blame it on the language!

Viva la revolution English!

And the reason would be because the justification has to be supporting what we are claiming to know. If we claim to know P (Quito is the capital of Ecuador), then an authority (atlas) may bolster our justfication. And since, here, we are claiming we know we know something, we must look at what we're claiming we know - that we know (just as we must for all I know X claims). So to seek justification for S (I know that I know), we must seek something detailing and supporting knowing, just as when we sought justification for Quito, we sought something detailing and supporting Quito.

Eh, I think this was a muddy explanation. Sorry.

And the reason would be because the justification has to be supporting what we are claiming to know. If we claim to know P (Quito is the capital of Ecuador), then an authority (atlas) may bolster our justfication. And since, here, we are claiming we know we know something, we must look at what we're claiming we know - that we know (just as we must for all I know X claims). So to seek justification for S (I know that I know), we must seek something detailing and supporting knowing, just as when we sought justification for Quito, we sought something detailing and supporting Quito.

Eh, I think this was a muddy explanation. Sorry.

You do not need to know what knowledge is in order to know something, but you need to know what knowledge is in order to know you have knowledge of something. P is a non issue.

but you need to know what knowledge is in order to know you have knowledge of something.

.

Yes, I thought of that, but then, what would your justification be for thinking you had knowledge? Remember, we're not talking about your justification that P is true but rather justification for your true belief that what you have is actually knowledge and not merely a belief --that you KNOW P. You would need justification that what you have is knowledge that you know something, and that is why I think you need to know what knowledge is in order to know that you know.

I don't see why. Why can't you know you know without knowing what the conditions of knowledge are? Suppose you just satisfy those conditions, but don't know what they are.

That's that I think too.

First degree K(P)
Second degree K(K(P))
Third degree K(K(K(P)))

Though it gets very tricky to be able to imagine it. I'm having troubles imagining it.

First degree K(P)
Second degree K(K(P))
Third degree K(K(K(P)))

Though it gets very tricky to be able to imagine it. I'm having troubles imagining it.

Yes. And I might have justification, but not know what it is.

That you might have justification is no good reason to think you do (or may) have justification, and if you don't have good reason to think you do (or may) have justification, then you shouldn't think you have a true belief that is justified. You wouldn't claim to know what you have is knowledge (of the fact that you know P) if you didn't believe you had justification.

So what that it's logically possible to know you know without knowing what knowledge is! It would be unreasonable to think you can know you know just because you might know you know without knowledge of what knowledge is.