In his recent Knowledge and its Limits , Timothy Williamson argues that no non‐trivial mental state is such that being in that state suffices for one to be in a position to know that one is in it. In short, there are no “luminous” mental states. His argument depends on a “safety” requirement on knowledge, that one's confident belief could not easily have been wrong if it is to count as knowledge. We argue that the safety requirement is ambiguous; on one interpretation it is obviously true but useless to his argument, and on the other interpretation it is false.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Neta et al. (2004) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: