Jacopo Pallagrosi

Bertrand Russell’s notion of acquaintance—still influential in contemporary philosophy of mind and epistemology—promises an immediate and epistemically secure awareness of things, independent of conceptualization, predication, and other forms of cognitive activity. This paper reconstructs and assesses the largely neglected critique of that model developed by George Dawes Hicks (1862–1941). Hicks articulates a distinctive and underexplored source of a line of criticism that later became central to attacks on the Given. He argues that wholly passive and receptive awareness cannot serve as the basis of cognition. If discrimination, comparison, and the apprehension of relations are assigned to a subsequent, heterogeneous faculty, their emergence becomes psychologically unintelligible: such a view would supply no bridge from mere presentation to cognition. I show that this objection rests on a distinctive “reverse engineering” methodology, according to which basic mental phenomena are theoretical posits whose legitimacy depends, at least in part, on their capacity to explain mature cognition. I reconstruct Hicks’s master argument and test it against an alternative framework developed from James Ward’s theory of attention.

According to a standard narrative, the philosophy of mind officially started in the 1950s with the decline of analytic behaviourism, the emergence of the mind–brain identity theory, and its subsequent critique by functionalism. Yet, a closer look at the history of analytic philosophy reveals this narrative to be oversimplistic and fraught with problems. Many early British analytic philosophers—starting with philosophers of what may be termed the ‘Cambridge family,’ such as G.F. Stout, G.E. Moore, B. Russell and C.D. Broad—were already engaged in extensive debates about the knowledge, structure and nature of the mind. Interestingly, their writings also contain many influential intuitions which later came to be regarded as central for contemporary philosophy of mind—such as the transparency intuition, the zombie intuition or the intuition underlying the knowledge argument. The aim of this book is twofold. First, it seeks to challenge the standard narrative by investigating, reconstructing, and assessing the contribution of early British analytic philosophers to philosophical debates on the mind, with a special focus on philosophers of the Cambridge family. Second, it explores the extent to which the views and groundbreaking intuitions of these authors can contribute to current-day discussions in philosophy of mind and closely related issues.

Recent discussions of acquaintance typically assume three claims: (i) acquaintance is a form of knowledge of qualitative character, (ii) acquaintance constitutes phenomenal consciousness, and (iii) necessarily, mental qualities are phenomenally conscious. This paper argues that, although each claim is independently attractive, together they generate a trilemma. Drawing on a general anti-triviality constraint on first-order empirical knowledge, I argue that if acquaintance both constitutes consciousness and is directed at necessarily conscious qualities, then the object of acquaintance becomes metaphysically dependent on the epistemic relation itself. In that case, acquaintance fails to disclose an independently existing object and thereby its epistemic significance is trivialized. Acquaintance theorists can retain any two of these commitments but not all three. I map the resulting logical space, sketch the principal costs of abandoning each limb of the triad, and call on acquaintance theorists to take a principled stand on which limb of the triad they are willing to abandon or revise.

Recent works in epistemology have defended the existence of acquaintance knowledge - a non-propositional form of knowledge constituted by the subject's acquaintance with particulars. A significant obstacle to the epistemic legitimacy of acquaintance knowledge lies in the fact that acquaintance is a descriptive psychological phenomenon, whereas knowledge is a normative one. In this paper, I aim to address this challenge by arguing that introspective acquaintance knowledge - the subject's knowledge of their own experiences constituted by acquaintance with them - exhibits a normative dimension. My argument critically hinges on the role of conscious introspective attention. Based on the idea that a distinctive manifestation of the presence of epistemic normativity has to do (at least) with the possibility for a piece of knowledge to be epistemically better or worse, I will argue that we can have epistemically better or worse introspective acquaintance knowledge and that this depends on the degree of attention that is involved in it. By assuming that possibly being epistemically better or worse implies for a piece of knowledge to possibly instantiate different degrees of epistemic goodness, and that conscious introspective attention comes in degrees, I will argue that conscious attention plays a gradual epistemic role in acquaintance knowledge. The paper aims to strengthen the case for introspective acquaintance knowledge as a genuine form of epistemic achievement, governed by attention-based normative standards.

This paper will be concerned with the role acquaintance plays in contemporary theories of introspection. Traditionally, the relation of acquaintance has been conceived in analytic epistemology and philosophy of mind as being only epistemically relevant inasmuch as it causes, or enables, or justifies a peculiar kind of propositional knowledge, i.e., knowledge by acquaintance. However, in recent years a novel account of the role of acquaintance in our introspective knowledge has been offered. According to this novel constitutive approach, acquaintance is, in itself, a sui generis—i.e., non-propositional—kind of knowledge. As we will suggest, a stalemate between David Chalmers’ account of direct phenomenal concepts—as a prototypical example of a causal view—and Anna Giustina’s account of primitive introspection—as a prototypical example of a constitutive view—is looming in the current controversy between the two families of theories. Towards the end of the essay, we will point to some possible ways for a constitutive theorist to break the stalemate.