This article investigates Katalyn Farkas’s notion of privileged access as a criterion to distinguish the mental from the physical. Farkas argues that a state is mental if and only if its subject has a special kind of awareness of it, that is, if it has a unique subjective dimension. I compare this notion with Rorty’s view that the mental can be characterized by incorrigibility, that is, being immune to third-person errors. I claim that the two notions are related but both have difficulties in accounting for the variety and intricacy of mental phenomena. In the final part of the paper, I not only analyze and contrast the views of Farkas and Rorty, but also suggest a modification of the concept of incorrigibility. In doing so, I attempt to provide a definition of the mental that is more adaptable and compatible with the variety and intricacy of mental phenomena.