(May 2, 2013 at 2:21 pm)Love Wrote: Yes, but we'd still be communicating these concepts via textual language in a rationalist straitjacket. I think the following is a good example. Take the profound musical genius of Mozart. Only Mozart had the subjective knowledge of his own abilities. If I was a professor in musicology and had 10 PhDs, all on the topic of Mozart, no matter how hard I endeavoured to analyse and rationalise Mozart's genius, it wouldn't come anywhere near close to understanding Mozart's private knowledge, primarily because Mozart's musical genius is beyond most people's comprehension.
This gets at the distinction between formal knowledge and expert knowledge. Formal knowledge is the kind that is not always required to actually do a thing. The most common example is grammar. One might be an expert in language use as a speaker without having any formal knowledge of grammar.
I think Mozart would first and foremost have expert knowledge in the area of music creation. He may or may not have had any formal understanding. (If the popular story of him being schooled at a young age by his father is true then likely he did also have a formal understanding of music.) That Mozart "knows music" is self evident but what may we assume about how he 'holds' that knowledge? There may not have been anything systematic in the way he put music together and he himself may have been entirely unaware of 'how' he did it. If it was entirely intuitive then his 'knowing' music may have amounted to a skill and a knack. This is a very different use of "knowledge" than justified, true belief.
