Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

What is knowledge?

By Quassim Cassam


What would a good answer to this question – call it (WK) – look like? What I’m going to call the standard analytic approach (SA) says that:\ud (A) The way to answer WK is to analyse the concept of\ud knowledge. \ud (B) To analyse the concept of knowledge is to come up with noncircular necessary and sufficient conditions for someone to know that something is the case. \ud Is the standard analytic approach to WK the right approach? If not, what would be a better way of doing things? These are the questions I’m going to tackle here. I want to look at some criticisms of SA and consider the prospects for a different, non-standard analytic approach (NA) to WK

Topics: BD
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Year: 2009
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (1992). Analysis and Metaphysics: An Introduction to Philosophy. doi
  2. (1992). Epistemic Folkways and Scientific Epistemology”, doi
  3. (1975). Ignorance: A Case for Scepticism. doi
  4. (2000). Knowledge and Its Limits. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 19 Thanks to Ciara Fairley and Paul Snowdon for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Thanks also to audiences at the Royal Institute of Philosophy and the
  5. (2002). Knowledge and its Place in Nature. doi
  6. (1979). Other Minds”, doi
  7. (2000). Scepticism and the Possibility of Knowledge”, in Understanding Human Knowledge. doi
  8. (1998). Strawson on the Concept of Perception”,
  9. (2007). Ways of Knowing”, doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.