and (something expressible explicitly by the use of alethic modal vocabulary). And similarly Q for consequential relations among commitments. The Genuine Knowledge Condition is satisfied on this model in the sense that it is not precluded by the model that the epistemic commitment to isomorphism of the semantically subjective norms of incompatibility-and-consequence and the objective modal facts which is implicit in the semantic relation between them (according to the construal of model’s representation) should hold objectively—at least locally and temporarily. The model also makes sense of the possibility of (it satisfies the Intelligibility of Error Condition). For, following error Kant, it construes the representation relation in terms. In manipulating (acquiring and normative rejecting) commitments according to a definite set of conceptual norms (deontic relations of incompatibility-and-consequence) one is oneself to the objective modal facts (alethic committing relations of incompatibility-and-consequence) being a certain way—as well as to the gound-level empirical determinate facts they articulate being as one takes them to be—the model also says what must be the case for that isomorphism (or homomorphism) relation to fail to hold in fact. Then one has gotten the facts wrong—perhaps including the facts about what concepts articulate the objective world. 12. In this chapter I have aimed to do six things: To demarcate explicitly the exact range of epistemological theories, epitomized by those of Descartes and Kant, that fall within the target-area of criticism; Hegel’s
and Q (something expressible explicitly by the use of alethic modal vocabulary). And similarly for consequential relations among commitments. The Genuine Knowledge Condition is satisfied on this model in the sense that it is not semantically precluded by the model that the epistemic commitment to isomorphism of the subjective norms of incompatibility-and-consequence and the objective modal facts which is implicit in the semantic relation between them (according to the model’s construal of representation) should hold objectively—at least locally and temporarily. The model also makes sense of the possibility of error (it satisfies the Intelligibility of Error Condition). For, following Kant, it construes the representation relation in normative terms. In manipulating (acquiring and rejecting) commitments according to a definite set of conceptual norms (deontic relations of incompatibility-and-consequence) one is committing oneself to the objective modal facts (alethic relations of incompatibility-and-consequence) being a certain way—as well as to the gound-level empirical determinate facts they articulate being as one takes them to be—the model also says what must be the case for that isomorphism (or homomorphism) relation to fail to hold in fact. Then one has gotten the facts wrong—perhaps including the facts about what concepts articulate the objective world. 12. In this chapter I have aimed to do six things: To demarcate explicitly the exact range of epistemological theories, epitomized by those of Descartes and Kant, that fall within the target-area of Hegel’s criticism;
WI%2013-8-29%20b.docx