What Constitutes Knowledge?
The workings of the mind have been the focus of philosophers from the beginnings of humanity. One primary focal point that has been pondered over by numerous thinkers is what exactly constitutes knowledge. At first glance the issue seems to be cut and dry but the question gets more complicated with thought. This can be witnessed by the many different epistemological theories put forward throughout the ages. This can specifically be seen by looking at 4 different classical views on knowledge, those of Plato, Epicurus, the Stoics and the Skeptics.
As it was stated in the opening paragraph of this essay everyone has their own theory of what constitutes knowledge. That is why I think it would be beneficial for me to state what I believe knowledge is. First of all I don’t think anyone can ever know anything for certain. I believe that we can sense certain sights, smells, sounds, etc. but our senses could be mistaken. We are let down by our senses all the time we see optical illusions, mirages, mishear people, confuse odors and the like. Also if you think about all of the senses that we are lacking that other species have we are missing out on a great portion of reality. For example bloodhounds have a drastically stronger sense of smell, snakes can see heat, dolphins and bats communicate through high frequency sounds that we can not dream of hearing. Added to all the other things that go on around us daily that we are missing shows me that we are missing out on what is truly reality. We can only hope to experience, or “know” our own very limited reality. So to that end that is one reason I don’t think we can ever really know anything. In regards to knowledge of human reality I believe that we may be able to be very confident of certain things but I wouldn’t go so far as to say we know them. To me knowledge is having 100% certainty of a fact and that’s dangerous in my opinion because nothing we experience is certain. Here I split what has been called knowledge into empirical knowledge, rational knowledge and Knowledge that we hear from others. However I think that each one of these categories has their own shortcomings and I’ll deal with them from the most credible source of knowledge to the least. As I explained before the senses can deceive us and there is no reason to believe that anything we see is reality. Eve...
... middle of paper ...
...ntrol plays an extremely important part in the process of chasing knowledge. It takes a great deal of self control to admit to yourself that you do not know something. It is a common human characteristic to assume that you know a certain piece of information and you need to restrain yourself and at least double check the validity of the statement. It is also very important to remember how you came to “know” the information. Many people claim to know things that they have learned in class, from parents, or in church. However, none of these are valid avenues to true knowledge. Just because another individual says something that makes some sense doesn’t mean it’s correct. The individual needs to be wary of believing that they know things. It is one thing to believe in something but it is a far greater commitment to say that you know.
In conclusion I agree with some of the points made by the classical philosophers on the subject of knowledge, but I don’t agree with any of their entire theories. Socrates, Epicuris, the skeptics and the Stoics all make valid points but also stray from my view of what knowledge is. However, I am quite sure that my theory could be wrong as well.
The Theaetetus is composed of three main parts, each part being allotted to a different definition of what constitutes as knowledge. While the Theaetetus is focused primarily on how to define knowledge, the arguments faced by Socrates and Theaetetus greatly resemble arguments made by different later theories of knowledge and justification. I will argue in this essay that due to the failure faced by Socrates and Theaetetus in their attempt at defining knowledge, the conclusion that would be best fit for their analysis would be that of skepticism. In doing this I will review the three main theses, the arguments within their exploration that resemble more modern theories of knowledge and justification, and how the reason for the failure of the theories presented in the Theaetetus are strikingly similar to those that cause later theories of epistemology to fail.
Life without knowledge would be worthless. Talking about knowledge what i mean is knowledge about something. The description of the state of some object is knowledge. The object may be either abstract or physical. Some examples of abstract things include memory, feelings and time. But how we obtain knowledge? Many philosophers tried to find an adequate answer to this question. They came up with so many theories summarizing the process of knowledge. But none of them all was able to state a clear definition of pure knowledge. One of those philosophers is Plato. In this essay I am going to discuss the concept of knowledge according to Plato’s philosophic conception of knowledge. I will clarify what knowledge is not perception. And from this I will move to explain the justified true belief theory. Then I will show the lack in this theory by referring to counterexamples: the Gettier cases. To end up with a conclusion that states what is my understanding of the process of knowledge.
Knowledge, its source and truthfulness have been under question for a long time. People have always wondered what exactly constitutes facts and if there are any defining laws that can be attributed to all knowledge or information available in the world. Many philosophers speculated on how information can be interpreted according to its falsity or truthfulness, but have not come to definite conclusions. Edmund Gettier has provided one of the key pieces in understanding and trying to figure out what knowledge really is.
What is knowledge? Knowledge, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Knowledge is also known to be “true, justified belief; certain understanding, as opposed to opinion”. Knowledge can be objective, but can also be relative. Knowledge can be objective meaning it is free of any bias or prejudice caused by personal feelings or beliefs. Knowledge can be relative meaning that a term, thing, or concept that is dependent on something else. But then again, which is correct; this argument came up in Protagoras’ claim. Protagoras claimed that man is the measure of all things. In this paper I will argue that Protagoras’ claim is true.
People believe that they are “wise” when they “know” something. A common member of society most often feels that knowledge enables people to feel powerful and misknowledge shows a certain weakness. Thurman explained, “Being right means that the world affirms us in what we think we know. ‘Knowing’ something is a way of controlling it, being able to put it in its proper place in relation to us so that we can use it effectively… So, knowledge is power, in the sense that it empowers us to act successfully. Misknowledge… is weakness, in the sense that our action may fail in their aim, backfire, or have unintended consequences. Knowledge is security, in that we know our vulnerabilities and can avoid harm. Misknowledge is danger, in that we don 't know what others might do to us or what traps may await us. We therefore feel powerful and secure when were right, weak and vulnerable when were wrong” (Thurman 446). Thurman took a distinctive approach and taught that not knowing meant obtaining freedom and achieving wisdom. Thurman taught, “… the Buddha discovered that this most certain knowledge of the ‘self’ is actually ‘misknowledge’—a fundamental misunderstanding, a delusion. And what 's more, he realized that this discovery was the key to liberation, the gateway to enlightenment” (Thurman 447). From a social standpoint, “wisdom” allows people to obtain a certain knowledge of themselves and in this way, acquire freedom. Once this “wisdom” is gained, one becomes selfless and allows him or her self to be a greater part of
General ideas can be formed by the mind without the use of our senses or sensory organs. Senses are acquired at birth but, the essentials of knowledge, truth and being, is slowly and hardly gain through many years of education, experience, and reflection later on. We now know that we cannot get the essentials of knowledge, truth and being for perception itself. Therefore knowledge cannot be based on
How do we know what we know? Ideas reside in the minds of intelligent beings, but a clear perception of where these ideas come from is often the point of debate. It is with this in mind that René Descartes set forth on the daunting task to determine where clear and distinct ideas come from. A particular passage written in Meditations on First Philosophy known as the wax passage shall be examined. Descartes' thought process shall be followed, and the central point of his argument discussed.
Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept of the divine.
Donald Davidson identifies three forms of knowledge which he believes to be irreducible and interdependent: knowledge of self, which is immediately known; knowledge of the outside world, which is simply caused by the events and objects around you, and thus depends on sense organs to be semi-immediately known, yet open to uncertainty; and knowledge of the minds of others, which is never immediately known. The standard approach to philosophy tries to reduce one of these forms of knowledge to one or two of the others, often leading to unanswerable questions. Davidson argues that all three varieties of knowledge are interdependent—that is, you cannot have any one without the other two. In this paper, I will primarily review Davidson’s argument of the interdependence of the three varieties of knowledge. I will then briefly discuss the plausibility of Davidson’s account and question if it truly can explain how we come to understand others’ feelings and emotions.
There is a complex process through which a person acquires knowledge, and it depends on the mental capacity of a person as to how much knowledge he can acquire. In Plato’s Republic, we can see what knowledge does for the man in the allegory of the cave. In this story, knowledge was acquired by experience. In Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, we learn what the ultimate intellectual virtues are and that wisdom is the highest of all. Knowledge from Plato and wisdom from Aristotle can be connected through the achievement of intellect.
Plato and Aristotle propose theories of knowledge in which they both agree that the knower is measure by the known and that knowledge is an exchange within the world. However, their respective theories may be considered polar opposites of one another especially when considering that Aristotle rejects Plato’s theory and admits that ‘informed opinion’, is a form of knowledge whereas Plato rejects opinion as a form of knowledge.
(q), his belief that he sees a barn, isn’t justified, though. Therefore, Dom cannot know (q). The internalism of my account is obvious. What’s required for justification of (q) is different for Henry and Dom because of each’s belief about the kind of environment he is in. It is the belief about the environment and not the environment that matters. In other words, two people could be in the exact same circumstances but what required for justification would be different because of the beliefs they have. Causal accounts of knowledge can’t account for why Henry is justified for (q), but Dom is not. My account is not a causal account; as is shown in the Dom variation above, my account has no problem accounting for the different justifications required for Dom and for Henry.
Descartes defines knowledge as doubt and uncertainty. He describes that our main source of knowledge is our sense perception.
...ll true knowledge is solely knowledge of the self, its existence, and relation to reality. René Descartes' approach to the theory of knowledge plays a prominent role in shaping the agenda of early modern philosophy. It continues to affect (some would say "infect") the way problems in epistemology are conceived today. Students of philosophy (in his own day, and in the history since) have found the distinctive features of his epistemology to be at once attractive and troubling; features such as the emphasis on method, the role of epistemic foundations, the conception of the doubtful as contrasting with the warranted, the skeptical arguments of the First Meditation, and the cogito ergo sum--to mention just a few that we shall consider. Depending on context, Descartes thinks that different standards of warrant are appropriate. The context for which he is most famous, and on which the present treatment will focus, is that of investigating First Philosophy. The first-ness of First Philosophy is (as Descartes conceives it) one of epistemic priority, referring to the matters one must "first" confront if one is to succeed in acquiring systematic and expansive knowledge.
Knowledge has a preliminary definition which is that it is justified true belief. Due to its dynamic nature, knowledge is subject to review and revision over time. Although, we may believe we have objective facts from various perceptions over time, such facts become re-interpreted in light of improved evidence, findings or technology and instigates new knowledge. This raises the questions, To what extent is knowledge provisional? and In what ways does the rise of new evidence give us a good reason to discard our old knowledge? This new knowledge can be gained in any of the different areas of knowledge, by considering the two areas of knowledge; History and Natural Sciences, I will be able to tackle these knowledge issues since they both offer more objective, yet regularly updated knowledge, which is crucial in order to explore this statement. I believe that rather than discarding knowledge we build upon it and in doing so access better knowledge, as well as getting closer to the truth.