Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The significance of knowledge
Constitute knowledge
Constitute knowledge
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The significance of knowledge
Gianluca Ortwerth
February 23, 2013
Theory of Knowledge
Dr. Stock
“Memory - The grounding force of Knowledge”
Our first understanding of knowledge is in our childhood when we rely solely on our perception of what we believe to be true, to be actual. Perception is our first natural process of taking in information before we evaluate its justifiedness in our belief or nonbelief of its actuality. The commonly accepted definition of knowledge as, justified true belief, is based on the sources of knowledge. The importance of such sources of knowledge are heavily reliant on the role that memory itself plays in the meaning, scope and reliability of what we call justified true belief.
With an operational definition of knowledge being justified true belief we can evaluate how each of those terms is affected by memory and what the effect proves for what we understand memory in and of itself. The justifiedness of what we call knowledge is inherently affected by our ability to continue to understand and give justifications for things we claim to have knowledge of. If we forget our justifications do we then have an ability to call the knowledge of something without justifiedness knowledge at all? When we discuss something being true it is dependant on our ability to give it justifiedness for being in fact something we find to be true based on any of the sources of knowledge in any combination. Those sources of knowledge being; memory, introspection, self-consciousness, reason, rational reflection and testimony. With all of these sources which ground what we call knowledge if we can find nothing to ground the justifiedness of something in any of these sources of knowledge we cannot call it true. With the last of the terms in this definiti...
... middle of paper ...
...nd our memory of their justifications is inherently of ultimate value in things being knowledge. Our memory of such justifications over time is our most reliable way of claiming that things are in fact true.
The meaning, scope and reliability of what we call knowledge is without a doubt completely based on our ability to remember things. We have to remember our justifications of why we find things to be true and the truth in being justified in believing things to be knowledge. The vast libraries of human knowledge as well as the things we as individual hold to be basic truths only exist insofar as we can remember them. The most basic source of knowledge being memory is the grounding force in it as well. Without memory of truths past, present and future, we can know nothing. Memory grounds knowledge, and always will as long as humans have the capacity to do so.
...ective and previous knowledge, as well as comprehension and understanding of information are things that determine the end result. Even the definition of a concept or reality can be different. Gravity is just a word attributed to a physical law but other civilizations might use different terminology. Does the name of a physical law make it knowledge or does the law itself, being in existence, make it true, thus being true knowledge. It seems that knowledge is simply a general and unspecifically
He claims that knowledge is the most essential mental state which therefore cannot be reduced to basic mental states such as belief and justification. This argument is supported by the idea that knowledge is the basis of what we perceive. This is validated by the fact that false knowledge cannot exist, whereas false belief can. Williamson provides an example of this through the idea of the Earth being flat. Those who believed the Earth was flat had believed falsely that they knew the Earth was flat. False knowledge cannot exist because it would require the Earth to be
All true knowledge is knowledge of the Forms. Therefore, we can only acquire true knowledge by recollection. Furthermore, since true knowledge of particulars cannot exist, only recollection of the Forms is possible.
First of all, human memory tends to distort and bias in favor of current thoughts. That is, when we perceive new beliefs that are different from the memories in our mind, we often trust the
Almost all epistemologists, since Edmund Gettier’s 1963 article, have agreed that he disproved the justified-true-belief conception of knowledge. He proposed two examples
The concept of false memory is important. In everyday life, mistaking what we know can affect us, in small ways as well as large. Mistakes can be something like mixing up theories and their definitions, or confusing a friend’s birthday with someone else’s, or even misremembering tragic events like the Oklahoma City Bombing. Our memories are susceptible to inaccuracies, it is paramount that we keep this in mind in places such as the court room, or even our everyday lives. With this understanding, I now know that not everything I remember is necessarily true. But I also know that our memories are right the majority of the time, and that we should trust our knowledge of the world.
This seemingly simple solution, however, does not quite reconcile the deeper nature of this concern: How does one recognize it, can it be said to be true knowledge, or is it perhaps something altogether different than what was first assumed? This raises multiple tiers of questions: How do we learn? How do we know what we already know? How do we know that we know? These are a series of questions that Plato seeks to answer with his “Theory of Recollection”.
Memories are formed through learning experiences and learning occurs using mental frameworks that are stored in memory. Without memory we would not be able to retain information, without which learning would not be possible. Hence we can say that learning and memory are highly interlinked concepts.
For me, learning is made through connections of different ideas, which were also created from different ideas coming together. I support my stance by stating that the human brain cannot remember everything, thus we cannot recollect everything. We learn through different connections in our brains. There is a certain amount of connections made in the brain and those connection dictate what we learn and remember. There is an infinite amount of ideas and a capped amount of connections that can occur in our brain, thus through this logic, recollection cannot be how we learn. Another stance that supports my statement is that our memories are affected by our different emotions and perspective. By knowing this, recollection is then brought into question about what is really remembered. Past knowledge cannot be trusted due to our brain not fully remembering and distorting our interpretation of the idea that we are trying to figure out. That is why we have cross-references in the court of law, but that still does not capture everything. Also, what if we are trying to figure out something that we do not know of? We cannot ask ourselves questions due to the fact that we do not know what we are trying to find. There would be no possible way of discovering the unknown, but by making connections through previous existing ideas we can discover new ideas purposely or even by
From that point of view, knowledge is quite fallible as everything could be an illusion. An example of this could also be the “A Brain in a Vat”-scenario, (Philosophy Gym, p.25). This argues that one’s entire perception of the world could be false as the brain might as well be in a vat on an alien ship, being fed with stimulants in order for the consciousness to perceive things, while being unaware of its actual situation. The conclusion to draw from this is that we can’t know anything for certain. Or at least prove that anything we perceive is real. Therefore we can’t know anything for a fact.
The first issue that needs to be addressed however is what exactly is memory? “ Without memory we would be servants of the moment, with nothing but our innate reflexes to help us deal with the world. There would be no language, no art, no science, no culture. Civilization itself is the distillation of human memory” (Blakemore 1988). The simple interpretation of Blakemore’s theory on what memory is that a person’s memory is at least one of the most important things in their life and without it civilization itself could not exist.
...pporting details. At the conclusion of the article, the authors share their thoughts on how it might be virtually impossible to determine when a memory is true or false. I also like their willingness to continue the investigations despite how difficult it might be to obtain concrete answers.
Memory is the tool we use to learn and think. We all use memory in our everyday lives. Memory is the mental faculty of retaining and recalling past experiences. We all reassure ourselves that our memories are accurate and precise. Many people believe that they would be able to remember anything from the event and the different features of the situation. Yet, people don’t realize the fact that the more you think about a situation the more likely the story will change. Our memories are not a camcorder or a camera. Our memory tends to be very selective and reconstructive.
With the just mentioned in mind, to varying degrees, I assert that memories are like the existence of truth. And that it is the testing of a text that determines truthful memories of lived experiences. A test of the text starts with a critique of questioning. For
We can define knowledge as a justified, true belief that can be shared by means of language.