True Justified Belief Theory Of Knowledge Analysis

The true-justified-belief theory of knowledge is an attempt to subject knowledge to analysis. The theory falls under the category of Epistemology, a branch of philosophy dealing with knowledge. The theory, in short, seeks to answer the question, what does it mean to know something? What parts lead up to a point, when someone can claim to have knowledge of something? The true-justified-belief theory of knowledge or “JTB” has three such components seeking to answer the aforementioned questions. The three components make up the theory’s analysis of knowledge. The analysis claims to demonstrate that in order to have sufficiency for knowledge, there must be a necessary justified, true belief.

The following definition shows the analysis of

It states that for S to knows that p, S must believe that p. Colloquially put, someone knows something, if that something is true. And, again, as discussed previously it is a necessary condition. Since the theory claims that this condition must be present for there to be knowledge. However there is an evident potential issue with this condition, or rather, what is meant by “believes”. An aspect of Psychological repression: repressed memory can be argued as a counter example to this condition. In this example, there appears to be knowledge of something without a “belief” in the occurrence. If I was in a car crash, and am aware that I was in a car crash, and I know that there is a certain degree of danger in car crashes. Yet I managed to get away unscathed and do not “believe” that there was any danger in my situation. The full enormity of the situation hasn’t “hit,” me yet, despite the fact that I am aware of what happened. However, the fact that, after, I refuse to drive a car, hints that I was more or less away aware of the danger, though I chose not to address it to myself. So in this case the counter example is just talking about my degree of consciousness in the situation. Which isn’t particularly relevant to the definition of the theory at hand. The theory assumes, with fair confidence, that you have some form of belief in the given situation, it doesn’t have to consider the multifarious states of awareness and consciousness that stretch, (but one could argue never break) the limits of what it is, to know, but simultaneously not