more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
I may be the final authority on whether my shoe pinches, but I am manifestly not the final authority on whether I understand some mathematical theorem.
Gist of Idea
I'm not the final authority on my understanding of maths
Source
Keith T. Maslin (Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind [2001], 1.7)
Book Ref
Maslin,Keith: 'An Introduction to the Philosophy of Mind' [Polity 2001], p.23
A Reaction
However, it doesn't follow that his teachers are the final authority either, because he may get correct answers by an algorithm, and bluff his way when demonstrating his understanding. Who knows whether anyone really understands anything?
| 3517 | 'Ontology' means 'study of things which exist' [Maslin] |
| 3518 | I'm not the final authority on my understanding of maths [Maslin] |
| 3540 | If we are brains then we never meet each other [Maslin] |
| 3520 | Token-identity removes the explanatory role of the physical [Maslin] |
| 3523 | Shadows are supervenient on their objects, but not reducible [Maslin] |
| 3525 | Strict laws make causation logically necessary [Maslin] |
| 3528 | Causality may require that a law is being followed [Maslin] |
| 3527 | Strict laws allow no exceptions and are part of a closed system [Maslin] |
| 3530 | Denial of purely mental causation will lead to epiphenomenalism [Maslin] |
| 3538 | Analogy to other minds is uncheckable, over-confident and chauvinistic [Maslin] |