Skip to content
Open access

Propositional Knowledge and Ineffable Understanding

Aug 2026 · Journal of Value Inquiry · 0 citations · 8 references

Abstract

This paper begins with the recognition of a class of extraordinary experiences I call ineffable understanding , whose contents are not linguistically expressible but whose phenomenal quality resembles that of ordinary states of understanding. I argue that understanding is a sui generis epistemic attitude not limited to propositional content: unlike knowledge, which is factive and propositional, understanding can involve non-propositional elements, and in its limiting case may be wholly non-propositional. The argument proceeds in three steps. First, building on Catherine Elgin’s argument for a non-factive interpretation of understanding, I show that understanding need not be factive. Second, I discuss three examples showing that understanding, in addition to propositional content, can involve a non-propositional element I call phenomenal engagement . Third, building on these two steps, I defend the thesis that ineffable understanding represents the limiting case of a continuous spectrum of understanding that begins with propositional understanding and gradually loosens its dependence on the constraint of factivity, propositional structure, and linguistic articulation.

Read PDF

Similar papers

Open access Sep 2026

Understanding the “Understanding of AI”:

It is argued that consciousness is a sine qua non for understanding which is absent in the understanding of AI systems and that the age of AI demands a reformulation of the notion of understanding itself.

Ramakrishna Iyer Lekshmi · 0 citations
Aug 2026

In defense of defeat

Kieran Britt · 0 citations
Open access Sep 2026

Did “might” make right? Epistemic modals in practical reasoning

Many philosophers have argued that the orthodox analysis of epistemic-modal sentences, on which such sentences assert facts about what is compatible with some contextually given informational state, is fatally flawed. As an alternative, some have suggested a nonfactualist reading of such sentences. On this reading, u...

Ka-Tie Zhou · 0 citations
#natural language process... Preprint Aug 2026

Whether LLMs Can Navigate Beliefs and Facts Depends on How You Phrase It

It is shown how fact-checking, a generally desirable behavior, can interfere with belief tracking in LLMs and how suppressing this attention at decoding time recovers accuracy only partially and only in some models, calling for future work on intervention methods.

Quang Minh Nguyen, Luis Frentzen Salim · 0 citations

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.