Year: 2026
Type: article
Abstract: Practical knowledge, as Anscombe understands, is agent's knowledge of what they are doing intentionally. McDowell (2010) contends that if Anscombe insists that one can possess the same practical knowledge even when failing to execute their intention, this view readily leads to a “highest common factor” conception of practical knowledge. As an alternative, McDowell then suggests a disjunctive conception of practical knowledge. In this paper, I first reconstruct McDowell's criticism as a skeptical argument against practical knowledge, which parallels that against perceptual knowledge based on a similar highest common factor conception. I then contend that although disjunctivism is the promising framework to solve this skeptical challenge, McDowell's approach leads it into the wrong way. His success‐centered disjunctivism fails to accommodate two salient features of Anscombean practical knowledge. Finally, I propose an aptness‐centered disjunctivism about practical knowledge based on a what I call Triple‐C ( Conducive to success , Capacity , Circumstance ) model of aptness as a better response to the skeptical argument. The crucial point of this new version is that it takes aptness , rather than success , as the criterion for distinguishing the disjuncts.
Source: European Journal of Philosophy
DOI: 10.1111/ejop.70119
Author: Shiwei Chen
Institution: Tongji University
Language: English
Subfield: Philosophy
Field: Arts and Humanities
Domain: Social Sciences
Open Access status: hybrid
Estimated APC paid: $3,240
Funders: Tsinghua University, Tongji University
OpenAlex ID: W7212189808