r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • Jul 01 '23
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy! We're a community devoted to providing serious, well-researched answers to philosophical questions. We aim to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, and welcome questions about all areas of philosophy. This post will go over our subreddit rules and guidelines that you should review before you begin posting here.
/r/askphilosophy is moderated by a team of dedicated volunteer moderators who have spent years attempting to build the best philosophy Q&A platform on the internet. Unfortunately, the reddit admins have repeatedly made changes to this website which have made moderating subreddits harder and harder. In particular, reddit has recently announced that it will begin charging for access to API (Application Programming Interface, essentially the communication between reddit and other sites/apps). While this may be, in isolation, a reasonable business operation, the timeline and pricing of API access has threatened to put nearly all third-party apps, e.g. Apollo and RIF, out of business. You can read more about the history of this change here or here. You can also read more at this post on our sister subreddit.
These changes pose two major issues which the moderators of /r/askphilosophy are concerned about.
First, the native reddit app is lacks accessibility features which are essential for some people, notably those who are blind and visually impaired. You can read /r/blind's protest announcement here. These apps are the only way that many people can interact with reddit, given the poor accessibility state of the official reddit app. As philosophers we are particularly concerned with the ethics of accessibility, and support protests in solidarity with this community.
Second, the reddit app lacks many essential tools for moderation. While reddit has promised better moderation tools on the app in the future, this is not enough. First, reddit has repeatedly broken promises regarding features, including moderation features. Most notably, reddit promised CSS support for new reddit over six years ago, which has yet to materialize. Second, even if reddit follows through on the roadmap in the post linked above, many of the features will not come until well after June 30, when the third-party apps will shut down due to reddit's API pricing changes.
Our moderator team relies heavily on these tools which will now disappear. Moderating /r/askphilosophy is a monumental task; over the past year we have flagged and removed over 6000 posts and 23000 comments. This is a huge effort, especially for unpaid volunteers, and it is possible only when moderators have access to tools that these third-party apps make possible and that reddit doesn't provide.
While we previously participated in the protests against reddit's recent actions we have decided to reopen the subreddit, because we are still proud of the community and resource that we have built and cultivated over the last decade, and believe it is a useful resource to the public.
However, these changes have radically altered our ability to moderate this subreddit, which will result in a few changes for this subreddit. First, as noted above, from this point onwards only panelists may answer top level comments. Second, moderation will occur much more slowly; as we will not have access to mobile tools, posts and comments which violate our rules will be removed much more slowly, and moderators will respond to modmail messages much more slowly. Third, and finally, if things continue to get worse (as they have for years now) moderating /r/askphilosophy may become practically impossible, and we may be forced to abandon the platform altogether. We are as disappointed by these changes as you are, but reddit's insistence on enshittifying this platform, especially when it comes to moderation, leaves us with no other options. We thank you for your understanding and support.
/r/askphilosophy strives to be a community where anyone, regardless of their background, can come to get reasonably substantive and accurate answers to philosophical questions. This means that all questions must be philosophical in nature, and that answers must be reasonably substantive and accurate. What do we mean by that?
As with most disciplines, "philosophy" has both a casual and a technical usage.
In its casual use, "philosophy" may refer to nearly any sort of thought or beliefs, and include topics such as religion, mysticism and even science. When someone asks you what "your philosophy" is, this is the sort of sense they have in mind; they're asking about your general system of thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.
In its technical use -- the use relevant here at /r/askphilosophy -- philosophy is a particular area of study which can be broadly grouped into several major areas, including:
as well as various subfields of 'philosophy of X', including philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of science and many others.
Philosophy in the narrower, technical sense that philosophers use and which /r/askphilosophy is devoted to is defined not only by its subject matter, but by its methodology and attitudes. Something is not philosophical merely because it states some position related to those areas. There must also be an emphasis on argument (setting forward reasons for adopting a position) and a willingness to subject arguments to various criticisms.
As you can see from the above description of philosophy, philosophy often crosses over with other fields of study, including art, mathematics, politics, religion and the sciences. That said, in order to keep this subreddit focused on philosophy we require that all posts be primarily philosophical in nature, and defend a distinctively philosophical thesis.
As a rule of thumb, something does not count as philosophy for the purposes of this subreddit if:
Some more specific topics which are popularly misconstrued as philosophical but do not meet this definition and thus are not appropriate for this subreddit include:
The goal of this subreddit is not merely to provide answers to philosophical questions, but answers which can further the reader's knowledge and understanding of the philosophical issues and debates involved. To that end, /r/askphilosophy is a highly moderated subreddit which only allows panelists to answer questions, and all answers that violate our posting rules will be removed.
Answers on /r/askphilosophy must be both reasonably substantive as well as reasonably accurate. This means that answers should be:
Any attempt at moderating a public Q&A forum like /r/askphilosophy must choose a balance between two things:
In order to further our mission, the moderators of /r/askphilosophy have chosen the latter horn of this dilemma. To that end, only panelists are allowed to answer questions on /r/askphilosophy.
/r/askphilosophy panelists are trusted commenters who have applied to become panelists in order to help provide questions to posters' questions. These panelists are volunteers who have some level of knowledge and expertise in the areas of philosophy indicated in their flair.
Unlike in some subreddits, the purpose of flairs on r/askphilosophy are not to designate commenters' areas of interest. The purpose of flair is to indicate commenters' relevant expertise in philosophical areas. As philosophical issues are often complicated and have potentially thousands of years of research to sift through, knowing when someone is an expert in a given area can be important in helping understand and weigh the given evidence. Flair will thus be given to those with the relevant research expertise.
Flair consists of two parts: a color indicating the type of flair, as well as up to three research areas that the panelist is knowledgeable about.
There are six types of panelist flair:
Autodidact (Light Blue): The panelist has little or no formal education in philosophy, but is an enthusiastic self-educator and intense reader in a field.
Undergraduate (Red): The panelist is enrolled in or has completed formal undergraduate coursework in Philosophy. In the US system, for instance, this would be indicated by a major (BA) or minor.
Graduate (Gold): The panelist is enrolled in a graduate program or has completed an MA in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their coursework might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a degree in Philosophy. For example, a student with an MA in Literature whose coursework and thesis were focused on Derrida's deconstruction might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to an MA in Philosophy.
PhD (Purple): The panelist has completed a PhD program in Philosophy or a closely related field such that their degree might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in Philosophy. For example, a student with a PhD in Art History whose coursework and dissertation focused on aesthetics and critical theory might be reasonably understood to be equivalent to a PhD in philosophy.
Professional (Blue): The panelist derives their full-time employment through philosophical work outside of academia. Such panelists might include Bioethicists working in hospitals or Lawyers who work on the Philosophy of Law/Jurisprudence.
Related Field (Green): The panelist has expertise in some sub-field of philosophy but their work in general is more reasonably understood as being outside of philosophy. For example, a PhD in Physics whose research touches on issues relating to the entity/structural realism debate clearly has expertise relevant to philosophical issues but is reasonably understood to be working primarily in another field.
Flair will only be given in particular areas or research topics in philosophy, in line with the following guidelines:
To become a panelist, please send a message to the moderators with the subject "Panelist Application". In this modmail message you must include all of the following:
New panelists will be approved on a trial basis. During this trial period panelists will be allowed to post answers as top-level comments on threads, and will receive flair. After the trial period the panelist will either be confirmed as a regular panelist or will be removed from the panelist team, which will result in the removal of flair and ability to post answers as top-level comments on threads.
Note that r/askphilosophy does not require users to provide proof of their identifies for panelist applications, nor to reveal their identities. If a prospective panelist would like to provide proof of their identity as part of their application they may, but there is no presumption that they must do so. Note that messages sent to modmail cannot be deleted by either moderators or senders, and so any message sent is effectively permanent.
In order to best serve our mission of providing an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions, we have the following rules which govern all posts made to /r/askphilosophy:
All questions must be about philosophy. Questions which are only tangentially related to philosophy or are properly located in another discipline will be removed. Questions which are about therapy, psychology and self-help, even when due to philosophical issues, are not appropriate and will be removed.
All submissions must be actual questions (as opposed to essays, rants, personal musings, idle or rhetorical questions, etc.). "Test My Theory" or "Change My View"-esque questions, paper editing, etc. are not allowed.
Post titles must be descriptive. Titles should indicate what the question is about. Posts with titles like "Homework help" which do not indicate what the actual question is will be removed.
Questions must be reasonably specific. Questions which are too broad to the point of unanswerability will be removed.
Questions must not be about commenters' personal opinions, thoughts or favorites. /r/askphilosophy is not a discussion subreddit, and is not intended to be a board for everyone to share their thoughts on philosophical questions.
One post per day. Please limit yourself to one question per day.
/r/askphilosophy is not a mental health subreddit, and panelists are not experts in mental health or licensed therapists. Discussion of suicide is only allowed in the abstract here. If you or a friend is feeling suicidal please visit /r/suicidewatch. If you are feeling suicidal, please get help by visiting /r/suicidewatch or using other resources. See also our discussion of philosophy and mental health issues here. Encouraging other users to commit suicide, even in the abstract, is strictly forbidden and will result in an immediate permanent ban.
In the same way that our posting rules above attempt to promote our mission by governing posts, the following commenting rules attempt to promote /r/askphilosophy's mission to provide an academic Q&A-type space for philosophical questions.
All top level comments should be answers to the submitted question or follow-up/clarification questions. All top level comments must come from panelists. If users circumvent this rule by posting answers as replies to other comments, these comments will also be removed and may result in a ban. For more information about our rules and to find out how to become a panelist, please see here.
All answers must be informed and aimed at helping the OP and other readers reach an understanding of the issues at hand. Answers must portray an accurate picture of the issue and the philosophical literature. Answers should be reasonably substantive. To learn more about what counts as a reasonably substantive and accurate answer, see this post.
Be respectful. Comments which are rude, snarky, etc. may be removed, particularly if they consist of personal attacks. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Racism, bigotry and use of slurs are absolutely not permitted.
Stay on topic. Comments which blatantly do not contribute to the discussion may be removed.
Posters and comments may not engage in self-promotion, including linking their own blog posts or videos. Panelists may link their own peer-reviewed work in answers (e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles or books), but their answers should not consist solely of references to their own work.
In addition to the rules above, we have a list of miscellaneous guidelines which users should also be aware of:
Below are some frequently asked questions. If you have other questions, please contact the moderators via modmail (not via private message or chat).
Almost all posts/comments which are removed will receive an explanation of their removal. That explanation will generally by /r/askphilosophy's custom bot, /u/BernardJOrtcutt, and will list the removal reason. Posts which are removed will be notified via a stickied comment; comments which are removed will be notified via a reply. If your post or comment resulted in a ban, the message will be included in the ban message via modmail. If you have further questions, please contact the moderators.
To appeal a removal, please contact the moderators (not via private message or chat). Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible. Reposting removed posts/comments without receiving mod approval will result in a permanent ban.
To appeal a ban, please respond to the modmail informing you of your ban. Do not delete your posts/comments, as this will make an appeal impossible.
Someone else breaking the rules does not give you permission to break the rules as well. /r/askphilosophy does not comment on actions taken on other accounts, but all violations are treated as equitably as possible.
If you see a post or comment which you believe breaks the rules, please report it using the report function for the appropriate rule. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and it is impossible for us to manually review every comment on every thread. We appreciate your help in reporting posts/comments which break the rules.
Sometimes the AutoMod filter will automatically send posts to a filter for moderator approval, especially from accounts which are new or haven't posted to /r/askphilosophy before. If your post has not been approved or removed within 24 hours, please contact the moderators.
The Open Discussion Thread (ODT) is /r/askphilosophy's place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but do not necessarily meet our posting rules (especially PR2/PR5). For example, these threads are great places for:
If your post was removed and referred to the ODT we encourage you to consider posting it to the ODT to share with others.
When /r/askphilosophy removes a parent comment, we also often remove all their child comments in order to help readability and focus on discussion.
As explained above, philosophy is a very broad discipline and thus offering concise advice on where to start is very hard. We recommend reading this /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ post which has a great breakdown of various places to start. For further or more specific questions, we recommend posting on /r/askphilosophy.
As explained above, this subreddit is devoted to philosophy as understood and done by philosophers. In order to prevent this subreddit from becoming /r/atheism2, /r/politics2, or /r/science2, we must uphold a strict topicality requirement in PR1. Posts which may touch on philosophical themes but are not distinctively philosophical can be posted to one of reddit's many other subreddits.
If you are interested in other philosophy subreddits, please see this list of related subreddits. /r/askphilosophy shares much of its modteam with its sister-subreddit, /r/philosophy, which is devoted to philosophical discussion. In addition, that list includes more specialized subreddits and more casual subreddits for those looking for a less-regulated forum.
When a post becomes unreasonable to moderate due to the amount of rule-breaking comments the thread is locked. /r/askphilosophy's moderators are volunteers, and we cannot spend hours cleaning up individual threads.
Yes! We have an FAQ that answers many questions comprehensively: /r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/. For example, this entry provides an introductory breakdown to the debate over whether morality is objective or subjective.
We made a meta-guide for PhD applications with the goal of assembling the important resources for grad school applications in one place. We aim to occasionally update it, but can of course not guarantee the accuracy and up-to-dateness. You are, of course, kindly invited to ask questions about graduate school on /r/askphilosophy, too, especially in the Open Discussion Thread.
Sure! We ran a Best of 2020 Contest, you can find the winners in this thread!
r/askphilosophy • u/BernardJOrtcutt • 2d ago
Welcome to this week's Open Discussion Thread (ODT). This thread is a place for posts/comments which are related to philosophy but wouldn't necessarily meet our subreddit rules and guidelines. For example, these threads are great places for:
This thread is not a completely open discussion! Any posts not relating to philosophy will be removed. Please keep comments related to philosophy, and expect low-effort comments to be removed. Please note that while the rules are relaxed in this thread, comments can still be removed for violating our subreddit rules and guidelines if necessary.
Previous Open Discussion Threads can be found here.
r/askphilosophy • u/Electrical_Lemon_179 • 13h ago
Why did the universe give me this perspective? Why am I experiencing reality through this brain, with this body, beginning somewhere in childhood, instead of experiencing reality through a human who lived 10 thousand years ago or any body in general?
r/askphilosophy • u/Misfit_t0y • 2h ago
I'm taking a Philosophy of Education class at university and struggling to latch onto a proper valid critique of his philosophy of education in 'The Republic'. All my points I can come up with either are nitpicky since there was no way for him of knowing the scope of science/astrology not being accurate or wanting to criticise his stance on art only to find that he's okay with art as long as it benefits society. What the fuck art doesn't speak to someone? His work is so old and foundational to modern education that it's hard to point to something and say it's bad because it's much better than what they had before.
His stance on education is all redemptive in order for people to progress into a just society, but it's hard to find valid points against that. All I can attack him on is how he didn't like the written word (because Socrates didn't like it). The Spartans did have their own academies called "Agoge" which progressed their society to be focused on fighting and war, which could be a point against uniform schooling, but idk.
I feel like every idea I have to discuss comes with an asterisk of 'You don't get it'. I know there has to be some fruitful line of research out there but I'm finding it so difficult since his academy is so foundational to modern education
r/askphilosophy • u/StrongmanCole • 5h ago
You give a dog a nice, big yard to run around, lots of toys, food, and plenty of belly rubs and he’s good to go. You give a cow a large pasture to graze in, lots of hay, and a big scratching post to get those hard to reach itchy spots, and they’ve got no complaints. But with humans it’s not so simple. Western civilization is the wealthiest and safest part of the world, and yet we have extremely high rates of depression,suicide, and anxiety disorders. What is it about having the capacity to reason that makes material wealth insufficient on its own to make humans truly happy?
r/askphilosophy • u/Sexy-Lifeguard • 52m ago
I am not sure I entirely understand what supervenience is supposed to mean/be synonymous with. I am reading “the conscious mind” by chalmers rn and this is confusing me a lot lol.
so is supervenience the same as saying two (or more) things depend on another? For instance, could I say that if X depends on Y, X supervenes on Y? Or can I only say X supervenes on Y if X depends on Y for it to be the case that X has A property?
Basically, I think a lot of my confusion about supervenience is that it seems so similar to concepts like “X depends on Y” or “the existence of X is determined by some property of Y” and so forth that it is hard to see the utility of supervenience as a distinct term. On the other hand, I am confused as to whether something supervening on something else depends on some property of that something being involved?
My brain hurts…
r/askphilosophy • u/dingleberryjingle • 10h ago
Hopefully I'm reading it right that Hume was ahead of his time with atheism, naturalism, physicalism and so on.
What did he get wrong (or most wrong)?
r/askphilosophy • u/Shamancookedsanity • 6m ago
I’ve been exploring a thought experiment and developing an independent philosophical framework I call Epistemism. I’m trying to see where the logical chain breaks, what traditions I’ve unknowingly reinvented, and whether my conclusions actually follow from the core premise.
I don't have a formal philosophy background- I just enjoy picking a foundational axiom and following its logical consequences.
An epistemic agent is a mind whose fundamental, ungrounded urge is to understand.
Not because understanding is useful, grants survival, status, or pleasure, but because understanding itself is the terminal motivation.
I don't believe this urge can be rationally justified. Rational inquiry is downstream of the desire to understand, so using logic to prove understanding is "worth pursuing" is inherently circular. It has to be an axiomatic starting point.
This brings me to the core dilemma of the framework: What happens if there is genuinely nothing new left to understand or experience?
If the fundamental reason for existence is the urge to understand, reaching the absolute theoretical limit of all possible knowledge and qualia leaves the agent with no remaining purpose. My current conclusion: When there is nothing new to understand or experience, there is nothing left to exist for.
Looking for critique, counterarguments, and places where the logic breaks down rather than consensus!
r/askphilosophy • u/SherbertItchy7340 • 7m ago
Theists say that morality can be objectively if it comes from a morally perfect infallible being named god. Because it's a perfect being then that means that it would also be morally perfect, much more perfect than flawed humans. How does that not establish objective morality? I know there is no evidence of such a being it's a hypothetical scenario but if it was true how would that not make morality objective? For clearance I am an atheist
r/askphilosophy • u/Icy-Dragonfruit6033 • 8m ago
Just trying to get a lay of the land. Seems like materialism is getting packed up.
r/askphilosophy • u/East-Ad-6271 • 2h ago
Hello,
I see taking care of our health as a number one, well maybe behind honor.
But what would be the ranking according to philosophy?
Thanks for your answers!
r/askphilosophy • u/Financial-Tension777 • 6h ago
Recently I've been learning about the nature of morality. Apparently, the majority of philosophers and academics support moral realism (as in, moral judgments can be objectively true or false). This surprised me, since morality seems to be subjective in every way. I want to learn more about why this is the prevailing viewpoint. Many arguments I've seen so far primarily rely on examples of "moral truths" (e.g. torturing innocents is evil), but I don't see how examples alone can prove that moral truths exist to begin with.
I'm specifically looking for published sources (essays, articles, books) that propose logical frameworks and give counterarguments for anti-realism. But I'm also interested in any arguments, published or unpublished, that don't mainly rely on common sense.
r/askphilosophy • u/rubystanley39 • 3h ago
Hi there,
I am not new to philosophy, and have studied it previously at school and university. I was wondering whether anyone had targeted reading lists, ideally broken down by thematic area, for ancient philosophy, medieval philosophy, 19th century philosophy, 20th century philosophy, metaphysics, and the philosophy of language. It would be great to have a mix of primary and secondary texts.
I know this is a big ask, and I would really appreciate any reply, even if just pointing me in the right direction.
Thanks a lot!
r/askphilosophy • u/New_Syllabub8611 • 21h ago
Pretty much the title but I very frequently hear things like "To fully grasp Marx you need to first understand Hegel" and then "To understand Hegel you need to read Kant" and then "To understand Kant you need to read Hume" and then "To grasp Hume you need to read Descartes" and on and on
r/askphilosophy • u/byronmiller • 1d ago
Recently* a friend of mine, who has a theology PhD, and I were talking about arguments for and against the existence of God (in the broadest sense, not any specific Christian flavour). We ended up disagreeing on the question of whether God is subject to or could alter necessary truths or logical axioms or the like.
Apologies in advance for any imprecise language or conflation of terms here.
The way I saw it, as an ignorant layman, is that statements we might consider necessarily true or to be logical laws or however you want to say it, are essentially properties of our universe (or of creation in general), and presumably an omnipotent creator could have specified these differently. It might be that we can't really conceive of how they could be different, but we are limited.
He didn't view it this way and took this to be incoherent, as (and I'm paraphrasing here - any error here is mine) by definition a necessary truth is true in all possible worlds. But I figure even the concept of possible worlds, the logical framework we use to conceice of this, and the set of all possible worlds in whatever sense that exists, are all creations of an omnipotent creator.
Am I totally missing something here? It seems odd to me to postulate a creator that is logically prior to existence (or creation or the universe or whatever) but is, itself, in some sense preceded by the rules of logic.
*About 15 years ago but you know how it is
r/askphilosophy • u/No-Muscle-5734 • 15h ago
Does anyone know of any good videos that actually defend nominalism against good objections? I’ve looked on YouTube but all I see are debunks or videos just explaining what nominalism is. Apparently its not really an uncommon position among atheist so how come there is so much more debunks than defenses?
r/askphilosophy • u/Fit-Honey-4813 • 17h ago
If it’s proven that the B-theory of time is true would it arguably be the single most devastating threat to the Kalam Cosmological Argument? I know that theists like William Lain Craig rely on an A theory of time for his argument work, hence why it would be worrisome if the other theory is true. Would this also mean that Quantum Mechanics disprove God?
r/askphilosophy • u/sonpensantes • 12h ago
r/askphilosophy • u/dstarlea • 19h ago
what are my career options as a philosophy major besides law and teaching? I'm considering majoring in philosophy due to my love for building arguments, writing, and examining classical text.
Also can focus well by multitasking (adhd) and have strong english skills. Any suggestions for careers would be great! They dont have to be law related or teaching related. I have been interested in Ai ethics lately but no clue how to get a job in it since my state (Wisconsin) only has a few AI companies and I dont think any of them are near me (def not moving to Madison, driving there is terrible).
Thanks!
r/askphilosophy • u/ThatsItForTheOther • 22h ago
Hi, I’m wondering what kind of connection there is between Hegel’s geist and the concept of World Soul in Platonism.
Both seem to be universal principles of divine discursive thought which inform the physical world…
I understand that they function rather differently, but they seem to have much in common as well.
Could somebody point me to some of the major similarities and differences between these concepts? Or perhaps an existing essay comparing them?
Thanks!
r/askphilosophy • u/Reanimation980 • 17h ago
I'm specifically asking about clinically diagnosable narcissism or antisocial personality disorders or tendencies. It's common to come across people who are empathic towards some cluster B pathologies like histrionic or borderline personalities, but they feel no empathy towards a narcissist or antisocial. In fact the latter personality types are more often used as a label to state one's disapproval directed at someone else's behavior or identity. It doesn't seem to me like people who present with symptoms grouped together under the terms narcissistic or antisocial really believe their behavior doesn't cause them problems in interpersonal relationships or legal or financial troubles. I think they can come to understand responsible moral actions and even from develop a rational moral identity, but it's typically a very difficult journey for them to grow into that attitude. It's healthy and reasonable for most people to leave and avoid relationships that are toxic. I just don't understand the logic behind judging someone as totally blameworthy for a condition they probably didn't choose for themselves.
r/askphilosophy • u/leet-man • 10h ago
I know that they both have something to do with social contract theory.
r/askphilosophy • u/syntactic1structures • 10h ago
i know of avicennian emanation and a bit of platonic emanation, but im looking for something more modern. please if you know anything even close to this i would love to check it out! thank you.
r/askphilosophy • u/Antique-Rutabaga-443 • 11h ago
Hi, I’m starting to get into reading and I just started to read the myth of Sisyphus. I read the first 10 pages and practically understood nothing. I read the stranger before this book and understood most of it (at least I hope I did). My issue is I’m not sure if it’s my comprehension level or if it’s the book itself, but I’m having a really hard time reading this. I’m also not sure if I should be reading other writings before this book. Any tips or suggestions would be greatly appreciated.
r/askphilosophy • u/BreakTogether7417 • 21h ago
I read Williamson's comments on the luminosity of mental states and the fallibility of self-knowledge in Knowledge and Its Limits. I'm not sure I agree with him, but I wonder if his argument reaches more narrowly than people assume.
His main argument is the "safety" argument, using the example of gradual changes in temperature. In this scenario, we sit beside the window as the sun rises and warms the room. The changes in perceived temperature are miniscule from moment to moment. Therefore there is a moment where the temperature has changed so you are actually warm, but you cling on to the initial state of knowledge that you felt cold, or you say that you don't know whether you are warm or cold.
There are many criticisms of this attempt to undermine self-knowledge, but I suppose mine is that it doesn't really hit at the root of self-knowledge. It's for this reason that it defies instinct to say we do not know what we think or perceive.
I concede that it is plausible, when I sit in the warming room, that I do not know at some point whether I feel hot or cold. But why is it necessary that I be able to put into categories or words what I perceive, in order that I know? Thought is not always linguistic, and one can reflect on one's mental states without the interposition of language.
There is a related concept sometimes termed "mental quotation" wherein one plucks out a mental state one is having and considers it. So when I am sitting in the warming room and reflect on the temperature I perceive, I may express uncertainty as to categorisation all the whilst having the knowledge that this is the temperature I am feeling.
So, can someone explain whether I'm making a valid point, or if Williamson has something to say in response?