Should introspection really have special epistemic status? Are you really the only one who knows your own mental state? Is there every a time (even one) when someone else knows your mental state better than you do? Explain.
I think that it should have its own special status in regard to one's personal knowledge of themselves. I believe that we are, for the vast majority of the time, the only ones who truly know our own mental state. If someone is seeing a doctor, then that doctor may have a very good idea of that person's mental state but I do not believe that they can ever truly know everything. Also, I think parents or siblings can have a good idea of one's mental state if they are around that person daily for a certain number of years. They may know their tendencies and behaviors which could lead to having a conscious idea of what that person's mental state may be like. I think there may be a time when a doctor may know your mental state better than you do when you are confused about something that may be going wrong with you. For instance, with the hallucinations, that doctor knew that blind ladies mental state better than she did. However, he told her the problem that she had, which would allow her to research her condition and possibly become more aware of her mental state than the doctor is.
Should introspection really have special epistemic status? I see introspection as just one type of knowledge that no one else can truly understand and that you can use to justify knowledge of yourself. As such, it has special epistemic status that only you can understand.
Are you really the only one who knows your own mental state? I do believe that you are the only one that can truly understand "all" of the reasons behind your mental state but I think that others can know your "mental state" based on your behaviors and knowledge of you. Is there every a time (even one) when someone else knows your mental state better than you do? Explain. I agree with nrz2305 on this. An example of when someone may understand your mental state better than you is a doctor, working with a Alzheimer patient may understand the confusion and loss of memory better than the patient. Another example would be in cases where you "lose control" and logic departs such as with rage. A viewer of the situation may better understand your mental state than you (since you are not thinking logically) but you may be the only one to truly understand the reasons behind the rage.
I believe with Leslie that introspection has its own epistemic status that only you can understand.
I believe that you are the only one who can understand the deepness of your mental status and the reasons behind it. However, I also believe that others can tell your mood by your facial expressions and/or your body movements. Someone close to you can usually always tell if you are acting outside your normal behavior just by taking the time to observe you. So even if they can't understand why you feel the way you do or why you are acting the way you are they still know you aren't yourself.
I think that we are the only ones that know are state of mind. We can only tell people if we are in a bad mood or if they can see how we are acting. People can't read minds so they really don't know what you are thinking about.
As an interesting counterexample, I have a great aunt with severe Alzheimer's Disease, and I often watch her during the summer. She does not know that she is hungry, but when I suggest that she is, she believes she is. This may or may not be a fallacy, depending on whether or not her stomach actually is wanting of nourishment, but at times when I know that it has been a while since she has eaten last, it would seem I possess greater knowledge of her introspection than she does.
Introspection is knowledge used to justify one’s own self and one’s one actions. It is a self knowledge based on personal experiences gathered over years of life. It can help us draw our own conclusions to problems and situations. Many authors try to put their introspection of a subject into books, articles, and essays and then try to pass them off as scientific fact when enough people agree with them. Should it have epistemic status? We give Descartes epistemic status and his mediations are, pretty much, his stream of consciousness and introspection on the existence of God, life, and reason. In communication we talk of our own nonverbal communications that we are not aware of but it is obvious to others around us. Rocking on one’s feet when nervous, a twitch, and a movement of the hands or of the eyes when lies are being told. Some of these actions are unknown to the doer, but plainly obvious to the viewer. Why can’t the same be true for introspection? We may know something but we don’t know that we know it. We may have an innate ability to understand quantum physics but we don’t realize what we know is quantum physics until we take a course. We may not be able to understand what is going on in class, but only after discussion with a classmate after class we will come to understand and realize we knew what was going on all the time. Finally, the medical field poses and interesting problem when it comes to introspection. Doctors and family members will have a better sense of one’s mental state than a delusional patient. A patient may come up with wild stories and made up experience for events that never occurred, but those around him/her will know it is false. Yet, the medical field is not a fair place to test this theory as it is known that many drugs will affect cognitive state.
Yes, I do believe that introspection should have its own epistemic status. I think that each person’s introspection is unique to them and only them and therefore, should be categorized as "special epistemic status". I also believe that we (you) are the only one who knows your mental state through and through. I think there are circumstances when someone can say they know you better then you do, but I feel that is an exception based off of past examples or a generalized idea. For example: parents sometimes know what is best for you or knows you better then you do sometimes based on age, experience, and past history. I also believe the only other exception to when someone else can know your mental status is when it comes to doctors. They can "medically" know you better then you do, but they don’t fully and always know your mental state. Only you can truly know your mental state, and sometimes you don’t have a reason for knowing what you know or how you know, but you do and that is why you know yourself better then anyone else.
I think that introspection should have its own epistemic status. i also think that you are truly the only person who knows your own mental state. people around you may possibly be able to tell that something is bothering you or that you are happy, but that can also be told by your emotions. a person can tell that you are upset if you are crying but that does not mean that they know everything that is wrong with you. even after you explain things to people they still may not be able to understand everything. even a doctor can not really knoe everything. yes they can know about other situations or things that could possibly help but everyones case is diffeent and thats why i think that you are truly the only one that can really only know your own mental state.
You are REALLY the only one who knows your own mental state as it is phenomenally experienced in the first person. But does this fact alone gain phenomenological introspection a radical epistemic status above others? There are many questions to be explored, e.g., "what exactly can be discovered through introspection alone?", And, "how could we have systematic 3rd person analysis of first person experience for the purposes of making universally intelligible and useful discoveries?" I would assume there is much to be explored through introspection and the discipline of phenomenology. I also think that phenomenological reflection is valuable in reveling the structure of experience, however, I am also informed by the sciences of mind, which have a theory of an extensive, rapidly, and automatically operating cognitive unconscious. Since we have no direct access to the operation of the unconscious and therefore most of our own thought, phenomenological introspection must be informed by empirical research into the cognitive unconscious. There is never a time when someone know's what its LIKE to be you, better than you do, but a cognitive scientists might know WHY you have such and such a mental state better than you do.
Introspection focuses on your own conscious and inner thoughts, which rely on examining our own thoughts. I feel like this should have its own category when it comes to an epistemic status. We may be the only ones that know our personal mental state, and having that knowledge will give us a better understanding of what thoughts are. There may be a time when someone else knows our mental state better than we do but I feel like that would be a good case of a medical issue. Doctors may be able to give medical reasoning for times where our own mental state may not make totally sense, but overall the amount of times someone else will know your introspection will be very rare. That is the way you can justify your reasoning and to explain your thoughts or feelings.
I believe it should have its own epistemic state as well. We are the only ones who know our own mental state. Others may have the ability to examine what we think, but we are the only ones who truly know our own mental state at any given time. I like the example Leslie gives on the doctor and the Alzheimer patient. This is a good example in showing a possibility of someone else knowing a person’s mental state better then the person itself. It is easy to understand, and it also is something that we do see in today's society.
The majority of the time I think we own our mental state but there are times where other people, and they don't have to be close know it better than us. An example of this could be when your going to overthrow a baseball, trying to throw it harder than you can. You lose complete control over your body and your mechanics so my coach always reminds me not to and I do it every time. He knows my mind wants to throw the ball harder but I physically can't do it. I do not know my own mental state or I would not do it so my coach actually knows my mental state at that time better than me, because when he reminds me I do not do it.
Of course no one can know our state of mind--it took me twenty-two years to construct my state of mind...good luck trying to replicate the process.
I believe that introspection does have a very esteemed epistemic status, but I add the qualifier that one must concede that the mind be embodied for the status. It's easy to assert that introspection is correct if one assumes our mind is free of subjectivity. But it isn't, so why can't we assert the opposite? I think we are socialized to believe that objectivity is the ultimate goal in life...as if we can shed our entire lived experience and objectively discern everything from an ivory tower.
Yes, I believe that introspection should have its own epistemic status. While it is possible to sometimes discern mental state through empathy and body language,I do not believe someone can personally know the mental state of someone else. Knowing how persons generally act in a certain situation (i.e. the five stages one goes through after learning of his/her impending mortality)can give clues, but again, the knowledge would be based on assumption,not empirical evidence.
I think that it should have its own special status in regard to one's personal knowledge of themselves. I believe that we are, for the vast majority of the time, the only ones who truly know our own mental state. If someone is seeing a doctor, then that doctor may have a very good idea of that person's mental state but I do not believe that they can ever truly know everything. Also, I think parents or siblings can have a good idea of one's mental state if they are around that person daily for a certain number of years. They may know their tendencies and behaviors which could lead to having a conscious idea of what that person's mental state may be like.
ReplyDeleteI think there may be a time when a doctor may know your mental state better than you do when you are confused about something that may be going wrong with you. For instance, with the hallucinations, that doctor knew that blind ladies mental state better than she did. However, he told her the problem that she had, which would allow her to research her condition and possibly become more aware of her mental state than the doctor is.
Should introspection really have special epistemic status? I see introspection as just one type of knowledge that no one else can truly understand and that you can use to justify knowledge of yourself. As such, it has special epistemic status that only you can understand.
ReplyDeleteAre you really the only one who knows your own mental state? I do believe that you are the only one that can truly understand "all" of the reasons behind your mental state but I think that others can know your "mental state" based on your behaviors and knowledge of you.
Is there every a time (even one) when someone else knows your mental state better than you do? Explain. I agree with nrz2305 on this. An example of when someone may understand your mental state better than you is a doctor, working with a Alzheimer patient may understand the confusion and loss of memory better than the patient. Another example would be in cases where you "lose control" and logic departs such as with rage. A viewer of the situation may better understand your mental state than you (since you are not thinking logically) but you may be the only one to truly understand the reasons behind the rage.
I believe with Leslie that introspection has its own epistemic status that only you can understand.
ReplyDeleteI believe that you are the only one who can understand the deepness of your mental status and the reasons behind it. However, I also believe that others can tell your mood by your facial expressions and/or your body movements. Someone close to you can usually always tell if you are acting outside your normal behavior just by taking the time to observe you. So even if they can't understand why you feel the way you do or why you are acting the way you are they still know you aren't yourself.
I think that we are the only ones that know are state of mind. We can only tell people if we are in a bad mood or if they can see how we are acting. People can't read minds so they really don't know what you are thinking about.
ReplyDeleteMichael Lancaster
As an interesting counterexample, I have a great aunt with severe Alzheimer's Disease, and I often watch her during the summer. She does not know that she is hungry, but when I suggest that she is, she believes she is. This may or may not be a fallacy, depending on whether or not her stomach actually is wanting of nourishment, but at times when I know that it has been a while since she has eaten last, it would seem I possess greater knowledge of her introspection than she does.
ReplyDeleteIntrospection is knowledge used to justify one’s own self and one’s one actions. It is a self knowledge based on personal experiences gathered over years of life. It can help us draw our own conclusions to problems and situations. Many authors try to put their introspection of a subject into books, articles, and essays and then try to pass them off as scientific fact when enough people agree with them. Should it have epistemic status? We give Descartes epistemic status and his mediations are, pretty much, his stream of consciousness and introspection on the existence of God, life, and reason.
ReplyDeleteIn communication we talk of our own nonverbal communications that we are not aware of but it is obvious to others around us. Rocking on one’s feet when nervous, a twitch, and a movement of the hands or of the eyes when lies are being told. Some of these actions are unknown to the doer, but plainly obvious to the viewer. Why can’t the same be true for introspection? We may know something but we don’t know that we know it. We may have an innate ability to understand quantum physics but we don’t realize what we know is quantum physics until we take a course. We may not be able to understand what is going on in class, but only after discussion with a classmate after class we will come to understand and realize we knew what was going on all the time.
Finally, the medical field poses and interesting problem when it comes to introspection. Doctors and family members will have a better sense of one’s mental state than a delusional patient. A patient may come up with wild stories and made up experience for events that never occurred, but those around him/her will know it is false. Yet, the medical field is not a fair place to test this theory as it is known that many drugs will affect cognitive state.
Yes, I do believe that introspection should have its own epistemic status. I think that each person’s introspection is unique to them and only them and therefore, should be categorized as "special epistemic status". I also believe that we (you) are the only one who knows your mental state through and through. I think there are circumstances when someone can say they know you better then you do, but I feel that is an exception based off of past examples or a generalized idea. For example: parents sometimes know what is best for you or knows you better then you do sometimes based on age, experience, and past history. I also believe the only other exception to when someone else can know your mental status is when it comes to doctors. They can "medically" know you better then you do, but they don’t fully and always know your mental state. Only you can truly know your mental state, and sometimes you don’t have a reason for knowing what you know or how you know, but you do and that is why you know yourself better then anyone else.
ReplyDeleteI think that introspection should have its own epistemic status. i also think that you are truly the only person who knows your own mental state. people around you may possibly be able to tell that something is bothering you or that you are happy, but that can also be told by your emotions. a person can tell that you are upset if you are crying but that does not mean that they know everything that is wrong with you. even after you explain things to people they still may not be able to understand everything. even a doctor can not really knoe everything. yes they can know about other situations or things that could possibly help but everyones case is diffeent and thats why i think that you are truly the only one that can really only know your own mental state.
ReplyDeleteYou are REALLY the only one who knows your own mental state as it is phenomenally experienced in the first person. But does this fact alone gain phenomenological introspection a radical epistemic status above others? There are many questions to be explored, e.g., "what exactly can be discovered through introspection alone?", And, "how could we have systematic 3rd person analysis of first person experience for the purposes of making universally intelligible and useful discoveries?" I would assume there is much to be explored through introspection and the discipline of phenomenology. I also think that phenomenological reflection is valuable in reveling the structure of experience, however, I am also informed by the sciences of mind, which have a theory of an extensive, rapidly, and automatically operating cognitive unconscious. Since we have no direct access to the operation of the unconscious and therefore most of our own thought, phenomenological introspection must be informed by empirical research into the cognitive unconscious. There is never a time when someone know's what its LIKE to be you, better than you do, but a cognitive scientists might know WHY you have such and such a mental state better than you do.
ReplyDeleteIntrospection focuses on your own conscious and inner thoughts, which rely on examining our own thoughts. I feel like this should have its own category when it comes to an epistemic status. We may be the only ones that know our personal mental state, and having that knowledge will give us a better understanding of what thoughts are. There may be a time when someone else knows our mental state better than we do but I feel like that would be a good case of a medical issue. Doctors may be able to give medical reasoning for times where our own mental state may not make totally sense, but overall the amount of times someone else will know your introspection will be very rare. That is the way you can justify your reasoning and to explain your thoughts or feelings.
ReplyDeleteI believe it should have its own epistemic state as well. We are the only ones who know our own mental state. Others may have the ability to examine what we think, but we are the only ones who truly know our own mental state at any given time. I like the example Leslie gives on the doctor and the Alzheimer patient. This is a good example in showing a possibility of someone else knowing a person’s mental state better then the person itself. It is easy to understand, and it also is something that we do see in today's society.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the time I think we own our mental state but there are times where other people, and they don't have to be close know it better than us. An example of this could be when your going to overthrow a baseball, trying to throw it harder than you can. You lose complete control over your body and your mechanics so my coach always reminds me not to and I do it every time. He knows my mind wants to throw the ball harder but I physically can't do it. I do not know my own mental state or I would not do it so my coach actually knows my mental state at that time better than me, because when he reminds me I do not do it.
ReplyDeleteOf course no one can know our state of mind--it took me twenty-two years to construct my state of mind...good luck trying to replicate the process.
ReplyDeleteI believe that introspection does have a very esteemed epistemic status, but I add the qualifier that one must concede that the mind be embodied for the status. It's easy to assert that introspection is correct if one assumes our mind is free of subjectivity. But it isn't, so why can't we assert the opposite? I think we are socialized to believe that objectivity is the ultimate goal in life...as if we can shed our entire lived experience and objectively discern everything from an ivory tower.
Yes, I believe that introspection should have its own epistemic status. While it is possible to sometimes discern mental state through empathy and body language,I do not believe someone can personally know the mental state of someone else. Knowing how persons generally act in a certain situation (i.e. the five stages one goes through after learning of his/her impending mortality)can give clues, but again, the knowledge would be based on assumption,not empirical evidence.
ReplyDelete