If epistemic autonomy is impossible, then ...?

As an introduction to the topic, please read Zagzebski's “Ethical and Epistemic Egoism and the Ideal of Autonomy" (open in Word).


If epistemic autonomy is impossible, then what are the implications of that for people, in any aspect of their lives?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As an introduction to my answer, please read the following: "Epistemic Autonomy in Spinoza"

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

first off...
OP needs to be clarified..
i read both links (three pages..)
loved the one line:

had to look up the word epistemic..(knowledge)

lets hear your view on what 'epistemic autonomy' is.
and why it is impossible..

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

All societies are a knowledge based. We share our ideas and values.

What's autonomous is the actions we contribute to society unknowingly. For instance, buying a happy meal at Mcdonalds.

 

Firstly, welcome to the Philosophy subforum LH.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Secondly,

Interesting, but where's the epistemic relevance herein??

 

the conversations we share within earshot of strangers would qualify..

 

Howso?

 

if you were to goto a convention, and just walk through (don't stop and talk)the crowds of ppl, listening as you passed by..
would you come out knowing more than you went in?
how many of those conversation was for your ears?

now this can be argued that the information was knowingly passed on,although not to you specifically, but for whomever would listen..

but i think i may be getting away from the original intent of the post..

 

Ah, but you're misinterpreting what it is to be epistemologically relevant. Simply because one acquires some knowledge, it doesn't mean that it's epistemically relevant. If that were the case, then the simple act of opening one's eyes would qualify...

I'm not sure either. Though, I'm having difficulty understanding the OP itself (despite how interesting it is). I may be misunderstanding or misinterpreting...

 

so while we wait for clarification..

what is epistemically relevant?
(that word is new to me so any elaboration would be appreciated)

 

Start here:

SEP - Epistemology

So, in this case, I'm differentiating between what we would consider to be knowledge, as opposed to simply information.

Overhearing a conversation, while granting you information, doesn't necessarily grant you knowledge...

 

way too long to read all at once..
(i don't have patience when it comes to long technically thick papers,)
(read first paragraph,will attempt more later)

show me a difference between knowledge and info..
(I would try to argue how info can lead to knowledge..)

and there is knowledge not just in the information overheard but in body language and other disassociated knowledge..IE you overhear someone say A=C..maybe earlier you heard D=C,so the knowledge you would get would be that A must equal D..

 

???

That's tiny.
I take it you're not a big reader...

Nope. That's just information.

No can do. That's what the link was for.
Also, that would be an offtopic sidebar...

As always, members are required to do their own research when required.
If a member chooses to take part in a discussion and runs into unfamiliar terrain, to keep the discussion on topic, the onus falls to that member to familiarize themself with the relevant material...

 

I think you are pointing at something interesting.

Namely, at the notion that epistemic autonomy can be had only if one acquires information/knowledge from others while
1. others have no awareness that one did so,
2. others have not directed their utterances at one directly or indirectly.

According to this, a fly on the wall that nobody is aware of would have epistemic autonomy, while nobody in the hall would.

Such a notion of epistemic autonomy might seem absurd. However, we can readily imply that many people have just this sort of notion of epistemic autonomy which they operate from.
This is manifested in the desire and activities to seek solitude while they try to "figure out what they really feel and think"; activities to disable or numb the senses while in the company or vicinity of others (taking intoxicants while in the public, such as going drinking together); seeking avenues where information can be passively taken in (such as watching tv, reading magazines and books, attending public lectures with large audiences where an individual person in the audience is not noticed or addressed); regression to childhood-stage with intense focus on the senses (spa treatments) and anti-intellectualism (abhorrence for philosophy).
Note also not so seldom statements that reveal such a notion of autonomy: "You are doing this just because someone told you so", "Think for yourself".


We must bear in mind that 1. we have a desire to gather information, to come to knowledge, 2. we also have the desire to be autonomous in this.
These desires are difficult to satisfy.

 

According to Zagzebski's arguments, which I agree with, epistemic autonomy is incoherent, thus it is impossible to actually have it.

We can argue that thus, it is also pointless to worry about not having it - ie. pointless to worry about that we could be wrongly accepting someone else's ideas or wrongly surrender to someone.

If we don't have such autonomy, then we do not have (ultimate) control over what we accept, believe, feel or do.

If this is the case, then we also have no real grounds to worry about what we accept, believe, feel or do.

I am not sure this implies that we are helpless or should be careless about what we accept, believe, feel or do.

But I think it does make, for example, interpersonal conflicts and confrontations and situations of teaching appear in a different light. This in the sense that the ordinary notion we have of confrontation, conflict or teaching, namely, that this is about one person trying to prevail over another and the other feeling/being defeated, is inaccurate.
If there is no epistemic autonomy, then there is no question of one person prevailing over another, no question of one person winning and the other losing.

If anything, epistemic autonomy seems to be something that pertains to the quality of (a person's) knowledge, but is not a quality of the person who (somehow) has this knowledge, whereby this quality of knowledge is not something that one could directly control.

 

I'd still like to here what Signal actually considers Epistemic Autonomy to be.

Personally I disagree with Zagzebski, and feel that she is missing the question of "What is knowledge?" and that her usage of the term (i.e. what she is considering to be knowledge) is trying to be too broad.

Epistemic Autonomy IS possible (imo) IF one reins in what one considers oneself to have "knowledge" of, and segregates it from the weaker "information that happens to be true" (for want of a better phrase).

E.g. if you have heard somebody say X, and X is true, do you have "knowledge" of X if your sole justification is that you heard somebody say X?

"Knowledge" in this regard is therefore restricted, almost by default, to that which is garnered through epistemic autonomy, and merely requires someone to be more willing to admit "I don't know".

 

Is this elaborated on in the link you gave earlier?
I will be able to print the article later today, but until then, I cannot comment to your position.

 

The link I gave earlier, while posted in a way that I was hoping would highlight my annoyance at people who just post a link and ask for comments without providing any personal input, gives a background into Spinoza's views around epistemic autonomy.

It is food for thought, rather than anything I agree / disagree with per se, especially as he was rather into God and mysticism etc, and I find some of his conclusions to be unsatisfactory.

 

i like to read.(otherwise i would not be here)..but alot of the scientifically published papers are thick with terminology i am unfamiliar with..(does not mean i am incapable of understanding it,just means there is a higher chance of misinterpreting it)
some are so thick that i would have to spend a semester or two just studying the terminology..(yes i think this is more of an excuse..)

i would have to agree with that..
but if you understand it...i think it was einstein who said ' if you can't explain it to your grandma. then you don't understand it as well as you think you do'
thats all i am asking..simplify it for us laymen..

i will go back and read some more though..

 

sounds like you are saying;
it is only ones responsibility to share what one knows to be true,it is not ones responsibility that the other person learns what is true.