3 ms·
I think philosophically, it would be wrong to refer to subconscious drives, etc. as "knowledge", much as you cannot know a falsehood (you can only believe in i
by Jun8 16y ago
I think philosophically, it would be wrong to refer to subconscious drives, etc. as "knowledge", much as you cannot know a falsehood (you can only believe in it). That's why there's no category of "unknown knowns".
- Zak 16y agoThe article is not referring to subconscious drives as knowledge. It refers to cultural assumptions that few people question as "unknown knowns". Many of these assumptions are the kind of things that PG refers to in "what you can't say".
- cperciva 16y agoyou cannot know a falsehood (you can only believe in it) Let's just say that N philosophers have at least N+1 definitions of what "knowing" means, not all of which are consistent with your position, and leave it at that.
- Jun8 16y agoHmm, I know epistemology can be hard to fathom (and frankly is not my thing, my thing being philosophy of language), but I thought my statement was one of the basic definitions. I would be interested if you can point me to work that considers a statement like "I know that Chicago is the capital of Illinois" (it's Springfield) tenable. I was taught that this was an incorrect usage of know.
- lg 16y agoAlthough he's probably right that Rumsfeld should've mentioned it, because there's something like unknown knowns for groups with a coordination problem (like the 17-branched US intelligence community), where some people know something but that knowledge doesn't propagate to the rest of the group.