The present paper will be primarily concerned with criticizing the defense of cognitive phenomenology
presented by David Pitt’s (2011) self knowledge argument, focusing on his response to Joseph Levine
(2011). In this essay, I argue that Pitt’s self-knowledge argument appears to presuppose that a person makes
voluntary judgments about their beliefs on the basis of recognition of distinctive phenomenal states, the
way we recognize what we see, hear, or smell. However, many of those who reject the…
Read moreThe present paper will be primarily concerned with criticizing the defense of cognitive phenomenology
presented by David Pitt’s (2011) self knowledge argument, focusing on his response to Joseph Levine
(2011). In this essay, I argue that Pitt’s self-knowledge argument appears to presuppose that a person makes
voluntary judgments about their beliefs on the basis of recognition of distinctive phenomenal states, the
way we recognize what we see, hear, or smell. However, many of those who reject the existence of cognitive
phenomenology (e.g., those who endorse Non-Phenomenal Functional Representationalism) would deny this
assumption. Thus, I argue Pitt’s self-knowledge arguments do not seem to be as general as may have been
intended, as only a relatively narrow audience who already endorse Pitt’s controversial assumptions will find the arguments convincing. However, while Pitt is unable to argue decisively that there exists a distinctive cognitive phenomenology, the same might be said of Levine’s argument that no cognitive phenomenology is required to explain how a person comes to have knowledge of her thoughts. I attempt to offer a defense of Levine’s account of self-knowledge of one’s thoughts, but I ultimately suggest that the literature surrounding the self-knowledge argument for cognitive phenomenology appears to collapse into an argumentative impasse, as both sides appear to rely on controversial assumptions that their opponents take to be false. In the last section of this essay, I discuss the implications of these conclusions.