Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
As far as I can tell, you are objecting to my assertion that I know that I'm replying to this thread (my premise 2), and this is what I point to with my premise 1, that any objection to me knowing that I know that I'm replying to this thread can be reduced to an objection to me knowing that I'm replying to this thread. But the opening post presents my first order knowledge as a given, and your initial objection was that I need justification for my second order knowledge. This justification is provided by my argument and assuming JTB, as we are, this adds up to the case that if I know that I'm replying to this thread, then I can know that I know that I'm replying to this thread.
You were taking for granted that you had JTB for your first order of knowledge - JTB about you posting on this thread. If that is taken for granted, then there is no disputing your second order knowledge - it follows logically, in the way you presented it.
Fair enough. Night Ripper appeared to be assuming JTB in the opening post, yet claimed that second order knowledge is impossible. This is what I was objecting to.
I also think that JTB is unsatisfactory, however, I dont think that any fully satisfactory model of knowledge is possible. So, when appealing to knowledge, I think that a model needs to be stipulated.
Are you proposing contextualism then? Or simply rejecting epistemological realism?