@Extrain,
Extrain;153093 wrote:That sounds right--analogously--just as P is true is a necessary condition for knowing that P. Funny, though, I've never heard it construed as the "KK principle."
Interesting...would you diagnose Cartesian methodological doubt, then, as a way of trying to provide a positive answer to the false KK principle?
It certainly seems Descartes' epistemic problems would have been brought about by his implicit adherence to this principle.
Yes, I think so. In fact, that may be one of the things that is meant by, "certainty", knowing that you know. Spinoza refuted the KK principle, but, being a Rationalist, he said that nevertheless, when you know, you know you know. Like all Rationalists, he thought the being in a state of knowing was like being illumined from within. That it was a kind of luminous mental state that you could not doubt you have when you have it, and when you have it, you must know you have it. I suppose like pain. The Oxford philosopher Harry Prichard (1920 or so) in a most interesting essay, "Descartes' Meditations" tells us that: to be certain of something is to know it. And "When we know something, we either do or can directly know that we are knowing it, and when we believe something, we know, or can directly know that we are believing it....." (I thought I saw this essay on the Net somewhere or other, but I can't find it now. It is one that is collected in a book of critical essay on Descartes by Willis Doney). I think the notion that knowledge is a mental state that can be directly know by the knower is what lies behind the view that knowledge must be certainty.That when you know, you know that you know. (It is interesting how, although Spinoza repudiates the KK principle, he nevertheless insists that when you know you know you know).