The philosopher, Linda Zagzebski, offers a virtue based definition of knowledge. She arrives at this definition by presenting numerous accounts of knowledge definitions that fail, explore why they fail, then shows how her theory satisfies knowledge criteria.
Zagzebski defines knowledge by expressing the relationship between the subject and the truth proposition. A truth claim becomes knowledge when your state of belief makes cognitive contact with reality. What it is to know that you understand something is different from having a relationship with something. Propositional knowledge, that can be known or believed, is her focus due to simplicity. The criteria required for belief is to have a thought, followed by augmentation with experience. The minimal criteria for a definition of knowledge must incorporate two types of “good”; a moral and an ethical. These truths are implemented to develop the foundation on which Zagzebski later builds her definition.
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
... middle of paper ...
...finition is not guaranteed to fail,” we must understand that saying a definition is not guaranteed to fail is different from saying it satisfies the criteria for always working. Given a situation where the agent utilizes double luck to acquire knowledge when a virtue-based act replaces justification makes us dissect the aspect of arrival. If the agent arrived to the truth and the motivation for doing so was not virtuous, then the same double-luck example could occur, the truth could be arrived and the knowledge acquired could not be good true knowledge. This is because the component of arrival does not entail the virtue. Therefore, there is no truth involved, but just luck. In this account her definition seems incomplete. If the truth of knowledge is virtue-based and all people are not virtuous agents, then how to we account for the knowledge of the non-virtuous?
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.
Williams’s and Nagel’s concept of moral luck encounter more disagreement than being agreed since moral luck is not universally applicable in every situation. The existence of either motive or agent-regret will, in some cases, be enigma since they are private matter and unknown to the rest of us. Therefore, the case of moral luck has been yet remains unsolved due to its inconsistency. On the other hand, if motives and intentions (of being moral) are not counted and/or agent-regret does exist, it will be unfair to the person who is incorrectly treated since the result is actually out of their control. Thus, the moral luck is a sensitive matter and should be applied per case based on the presented facts. There is no such universal formula for relevance of moral luck in each situation.
Knowledge is defined as information and skills one acquires through experience or education. There is; however, a certain knowledge than cannot be certain and is unjustifiable from the scientific perspective. Karen Armstrong, Robert Thurman, and Azar Nafisi wrote about this type of knowledge in their essays: “Homo Religiosus,” “Wisdom,” and “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” respectively. Each of these authors has a different view of what knowledge is exactly, how it can be achieved, and what it means to have achieved it, but each author takes on the view that the concept of knowledge should be viewed from a social stance. Armstrong refers to this uncertain knowledge as “myth,” Thurman refers to it as “wisdom,” and Nafisi refers to it as “upsilamba";
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
Given that the nature of virtue ethics makes it relatively impossible to effectively evaluate the morality of people’s actions, it is still used as an argument to refute the possibility
Lagemaat, Richard van de. Theory of Knowledge for the IB Diploma. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
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.
In this paper, I offer a solution to the Gettier problem by adding a fourth condition to the justified true belief analysis of knowledge. First though, a brief review. Traditionally, knowledge had been accounted for with the justified true belief analysis. To know something, three conditions had to be met: first, you had to have a belief; second, the belief had to be justified; third, this justified belief had to be true. So a justified true belief counts as knowledge. Gettier however showed this analysis to be inadequate as one can have a justified true belief that no one would want to count as knowledge.
"Knowledge, Truth, and Meaning." Cover: Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
In conclusion, this paper examined three philosophical problems that some philosophers have credited to the priority of definition principle. By re-examining the text I found that there is a good reason to accept both of these distinctions. He talks of moral beliefs that he accepts but he refuses to consider those beliefs as knowledge. Socratic polices, ethics and method is examined and opinionated through out this paper. Also true and false issues are brought up, and explained in details. This paper is mostly fixated on Socrates way of knowledge and if the method is the correct way of learning and teaching. I would like to close with this small thought, people set the boundaries of right and wrong, and every society is different, as so is Socrates.
Another division found in virtue ethics is the development and manifestation of virtues. While several philosophers stress the importance of developing virtues in the character, so these virtues can manifest later in actions, other philosophers claim virtues should not be developed subjectively and generalize their development based on the entire society (Oakly & Cocking, 2004). In other words, it is possible to argue that Sally did not develop the virtue of justice and equality because she worked against existing policies and treated one client differently. In this scenario, she did not display loyalty to the company, but it is possible that her compassion overpowered her sense of logical reasoning.
Question No. 5 “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing.” Discuss.
Albert Einstein said, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” This new manner of thinking should be based on pre-existing knowledge. This pre-existing knowledge is necessary because it is the catalyst that pushes the human race forward, making us want to discover more. Trying to discover completely new knowledge would not yield the same results. Basing your research off what you already know allows you to compare the new data that you collected to the old data that is already present. If you discover something new you will have nothing to compare it with. This does not allow you the luxury of seeing if what you discovered was an improvement. This essay will examine how important it is to discover new ways of thinking about prior knowledge than it is to discover new facts. I believe that using prior knowledge to push discovery is much more important than trying to discovers new data or facts.
In this paper, I will investigate the logical progress of Socrates’s proof “virtue is knowledge”. The reason why Socrates shows Meno how to prove “virtue is knowledge”, is because it can answer Meno’s question “can virtue be taught”, if virtue is knowledge, thus it can be taught. In brief, first Socrates proves someone who has virtue, knows what is good, then he proves someone who knows what is good, has virtue. Therefore, virtue is knowledge. I divide this whole progress into seven parts, and I will explain them step by step.
We gain knowledge in through our ways of knowing which are mainly perception, reason and language. We use them to find knowledge because we justify our claims and beliefs by their use, thus, our evidences, because they get us closer to the truth. To accept something as knowledge, it must be considered true, one must believe it and there must be justification why the person knows it, therefore these ways of knowing aid in the process for our quest for knowledge. In conclusion, in order to obtain knowledge all of these three attributes have to be integrated in some type of way, and due to the changing nature of all three of them, knowledge is always changing and it is dynamic, leading to the fact that knowledge can be discarded. The questions b...