Waldemar Brys

This paper explores a partialist strand in Epictetus’s ethical thought. Epictetus repeatedly refers to the specific roles we have to play in our lives. Some of these roles are defined by certain social relationships in which we are involved: we are children of somebody, sometimes siblings, sometimes someone’s parents or someone’s spouses. All these roles, or so Epictetus argues, define the actions appropriate for someone occupying these specific roles. This means again that there are actions appropriate towards parents, which are different from actions appropriate towards siblings or towards strangers. It is appropriate, then, not to treat everybody alike, but to display a special concern for the well-being of those close to us.

Increasingly, epistemologists are discussing the conceptual relationships between knowledge-that and knowledge-how. This chapter argues that epistemology should also encompass a distinct concept of knowing-to. Only with the addition of knowing-to can knowledge-how ever be manifested in a particular action within a particular setting. Unlike the possibly longer-lasting knowledge-how, knowing-to is fleeting and contextual. It is inherent within what Gilbert Ryle called intelligent acting. In ordinary parlance, we talk freely of knowing-to; here, I begin investigating epistemologically this epistemic aspect of action.

Edmund Gettier's 1963 verdict about what knowledge is not has become an item of philosophical orthodoxy, accepted by philosophers as a genuine epistemological result. It assures us that - contrary to what Plato and later philosophers have thought - knowledge is not merely a true belief well supported by epistemic justification. But that orthodoxy has generated the Gettier problem - epistemology's continuing struggle to understand how to accommodate Gettier's apparent result within an improved conception of knowledge. In this book, Stephen Hetherington argues that none of epistemology's standard attempts to solve that problem have succeeded: he shows how subtle yet fundamental mistakes - regarding explication, methodology, properties, modality, and fallibility - have permeated those responses to Gettier's challenge. His fresh and original book outlines a new way of solving the problem, and an improved grasp of Gettier's challenge and its significance is the result. In a sense, Plato can now embrace Gettier.

Post-Gettier epistemology is increasingly modalized epistemology – proposing and debating modally explicable conditionals with suitably epistemic content (an approach initially inspired by Robert Nozick's 1981 account of knowledge), as needing to be added to 'true belief' in order to define or understand knowing's nature. This Element asks whether such modalized attempts – construed as responding to what the author calls Knowing's Further Features question (bequeathed to us by the Meno and the Theaetetus) – can succeed. The answer is that they cannot. Plato's and Aristotle's views on definition reinforce that result. Still, in appreciating this, we might gain insight into knowing's essence. We might find that knowledge is, essentially, nothing more than true belief.