KNOWLEDGE BY ACQUAINTANCE 



AND KNOWLEDGE BY 



DESCRIPTION 



r I &quot;HE object of the following paper is to consider what 

 -* it is that we know in cases where we know pro 

 positions about &quot;the so-and-so &quot; without knowing who 

 or what the so-and-so is. For example, I know that the 

 candidate who gets most votes will be elected, though I 

 do not know who is the candidate who will get most 

 votes. The problem I wish to consider is : Wha.^ fa we 

 know in these cases, where the subject is merely described? 

 I have considered this problem elsewhere 1 from a purely 

 logical point of view ; bvit in what follows I Jjvish to con- 

 sider the question in relation to theory of knowledge as 

 well as in relation to logic, and in view of the above- 

 mentioned logical discussions, I shall in this paper make 

 the logical portion as brief as possible. 



In order to make clear the antithesis between &quot; ac 

 quaintance &quot;&quot;a^d &quot; description/ I shall first of all try to 

 explain what I mean by &quot; acquaintance.&quot; I say that I 

 am acquainted with an object when I have a direct 

 cognitive relation to that object, i.e. when I am directly 

 aware of the object itself. When I speak of a cognitive 

 relation here, I^do not mean the sort of relation which 

 constitutes judgment, but the sort which constitutes 

 In fact, I think the relation of subject ano 



1 Soe references later. 

 309 



