Jeremy Stangroom

Epistemology paper I’m just going to throw out the idea for into the ether-“The Identity of Nobody In Particular: Gettier cases and the view that doubts we can know our own Gender IDs, but we are nevertheless justified in believing that we do about our own gender.”

The basic issue is the circularity of a Wittgenstein’s Beetle of any kind. If yr justification E isn’t public, other people are entitled to doubt the thing you know bc E, bc they don’t know E. But you, in fact, *do* have this private E , or at least so you claim. & so we doubt.

If the only thing that justifies your belief in T is E, & we have no acces to E b/c E is yr private experience, then you can know what you know and we still get to doubt you. Are justified in doubting you. Are required by reason to doubt you. Like it or not, that’s the detente.

I once leveraged that kind of argument to support belief in God from personal experience. Ultimately not sure it works because language isn't private, and inevitably we name our own experiences (and contextualize then within linguistic framework).

You are misunderstanding me.

I don't think I am...