While reminiscing over the notion of recollection, that is, that all knowledge is just remembering, I found it to be quite problematic.


(1) S knows p at t

According to the doctrine of recollection, (1) necessitates:

(2) If S knows p at t, then there is an earlier time t2, such that S knew (or 'knows' [the tenses aren't necessary]) p at t2.

The reason why is that, if all knowledge is recollection, then knowing any proposition requires recollecting it, meaning, it has to be the case that S knew p at an earlier time t2. Now, what's the problem? The problem is that this all leads to a vicious infinite regress. If it must be the case that knowing a proposition entails knowing it at an earlier time, knowing it at those earlier times also require earlier times, and it goes on ad infinitum.


Secondly, is that recollection requires knowing one knows. That is, if S knows p, then S recollected p. But if a proposition is recollected, it is already known by S, just unconsciously. So, S must know that S knows p. This too runs into an infinite regress. If S must know that S knows p, then S must know that S knows that S knows p.