Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Epistemology
Socrates once said “To know, is to know that you know nothing. That is the meaning of true knowledge.”(Citation ) The study of knowledge is something philosophers have been conducting from the creation of philosophy. In fact knowledge is one of the perennial topics of philosophy, just as nature of matter in the physical sciences. The discipline of knowledge is known as epistemology(Greek meaning of knowledge and reason). Epistemology is literally defined as means to reason about knowledge, to think about knowledge and to examine knowledge so that we may better ourselves. Philosophers who study knowledge attempt to study what makes up knowledge, the kinds of things one can know, what the limits of knowledge and above all, the age long question …show more content…
The first condition is often referred simply as belief. Beliefs are things individuals possess. Beliefs aren 't like trees or cars where ones may come across them while taking a stroll through a town square. Beliefs are in the head and generally are viewed as just the way a certain individual 's views the world. If one believes that humans cannot fly, they just think that humans really cannot fly. The statement, “They just think” For many philosophers, is extremely important. It implies that what they think could be wrong. In other words, it implies that the way they think about the world could possible not match up with the way the world really is and so there is a distinction between belief and the next condition, truth. Something is true if the world really is that way. Unlike belief, truth is not in the head, but is “out there.” The statement, “Humans cannot fly” is true if humans cannot fly. The statement in quotes signifies a statement on may make about the world and the second statement describes the way the world actually is. When one believes something, they hold that or accept that a statement or proposition is true. It could be false, and that 's why their belief may not “match up” with the way the world really is. The last condition, Justification, is the more difficult condition to explain. Think of belief as the seed of knowledge and truth is the energy and water of …show more content…
Most Philosophers talk of individual people being justified, not the ideas or concepts themselves being justified. What this means is that what may count as knowledge for one may not count as knowledge for another. The subjective nature of knowledge partly is based upon the idea that belief are things that individuals have and those belief are justified or not justified. When one thinks about this, it actually does make sense. Someone may have more evidence or different experience than those someone else has, and similarly they may believe things someone else may not or has evidence for something they don 't. Simply put, universal knowledge, which is something everybody knows, may be very hard to come by. Truth, if it exists, is not like Justification. Truth is universal. It 's the way people access knowledge, and it may vary
According to the reading, Writing as a Mode of Learning by Janet Emig, knowledge is described as “an act of knowing that enters as a passionate contribution of the person to know what is being known, which is a coefficient that is no mere imperfection but a vital component of a person’s knowledge.” Essentially, knowledge is composed of what a person, association or discourse community knows about what is already known in their area of expertise or fully know what could occur in a certain situation, similar to how a rhetor must prepare and know what rhetorical situations might occur at any moment during their speech or writing. Knowledge is created to prepare for various outcomes and situations as goals are being constructed in a discourse community.
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...
There is no concrete definition of knowledge, but there is a definition that is widely agreed upon, or a standard definition. This definition may be widely accepted, but just like most things in philosophy, it is controversial and many disagree with it. The definition involves three conditions that must be met in order for one to truly say that they know something to be true. If one were to state: “The Seattle Mariners have never won a world series,” using the standard definition would look like this: first, the person believes the statement to be true. Second, the statement is in fact true. Third, the person is justified in believing the statement to be true. The three conditions are belief, truth, and justification. There are the “necessary and sufficient conditions” for knowledge. Necessary and sufficient conditions are linked to conditional statements, ‘if x, then y’ statements.
But because a man is not permitted without censure to follow his own thoughts in the search of truth, when they lead him ever so little out of the common road, I shall set down the reasons that made me doubt of the truth of that opinion, as an excuse for my mistake, if I be in one; which I leave to be considered by those who, with me, dispose themselves to embrace truth wherever they find it.
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";
By definition, knowledge is the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (Merriam-Webster.com). In the novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley considers knowledge as a “dangerous” factor. The danger of it is proved throughout the actions of the characters Robert Walton, Victor Frankenstein, and the creature. The characters all embody the theme of knowledge in different ways. Shelley supports her opinion on knowledge by using references from the Bible and Paradise Lost.
The foundation of valid knowledge depends on one’s personal understanding. To “know” means to understand or be aware. Everyone’s personal knowledge differs and the way we obtain and interpret our knowledge is usually through our spiritual beliefs. In order to gain knowledge I rely on the Word of God. The knowledge of God is the most valuable knowledge a human being can possess. The Word of God can be found in Scripture. Proverbs 2:6 tells us that the Lord gives us wisdom and that the wisdom of God results in knowledge and understanding. But it is also clear that simply being aware of God’s existence is not adequate; the knowledge of God must encompass the profound appreciation for Him and produce a loving and growing relationship with Him.
Some of the objections, such as the ones made by Edmund Gettier, claim that three conditions are not nearly enough to justify a true belief, and that at the very least a fourth must be added. Gettier presents a very valid criticism of the JTB theory of knowledge, and his counter examples highlight flaws in the JTB theory that make it an inadequate theory of knowledge. Gettier claims takes an issue with the third part of the JTB theory, which states that proposition P must be true. Gettier makes the interesting observation that person S may very well be justified in believing in proposition P even if P is false
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.
Truth is essentially divided into two main types of truth. There is empirical truth that is what is observed, what can be tangibly learned from observation. For an example we look at, Starbucks makes coffee and other hot beverages. This is a form of empirical truth, which is what is observed. Other than the empirical truth, there is truth. Truth is defined by us, by our beliefs, experiences, observations. This is the problem that there is with the nature of truth, because our experiences, and beliefs may differ from someone else giving them different truth. There are several theories on truth, and they are the Correspondence Theory, the Semantic Theory, the Deflationary Theory, the Coherence Theory, and the Pragmatic Theory. In this paper, we will be focusing on the Correspondence Theory and the Coherence Theory ( insert citation, IEP website).
4. The coherence of a system of beliefs is diminished to the extent to which it is divided into subsystems of beliefs which are relatively unconnected to each other by inferential connections.
There are therefore absolute distinctions between what is true and what is false in such fields where a distinction matters and is significant, but circumstances also arise when truth must be relative to a certainty continuum where one may find a middle ground.
Truth and beliefs contribute in building the knowledge of a person. Cogent reasons for the beliefs convert the beliefs into knowledge. However, sometimes the beliefs are actually assumption, so they may be wrong. Truth is the facts known from different sources. Something can be considered as knowledge, only if it is true. The word epistemology refers to studying the source of knowledge. The epistemology helps in understanding the process of development of knowledge, sources of knowledge and makes distinctions between belief and actual truth. I critically examined and analyzed the origin and the process of acquiring the knowledge for the two essays I wrote earlier. One essay, an analytical one, was written on the subject of increasing prison population and improper justice system. The second essay was written on the subject of human resource management. To develop the knowledge and understanding I demonstrated in the essays, I had to search for resources, rationalize the information gained and evaluate it in conjunction with my personal beliefs.
Reasoning is a way of knowing; it is the process of forming ideas based on previous knowledge. It is rational, and therefore by reasoning, events appear to be logical and consistent. Whether reasoning can expose truth is determined...
Knowledge can be interpreted in many different ways. Some may see knowledge as learned education. Others may see education as intelligence. None of these perspectives of knowledge are right or wrong. Every person is entitled to their own definition, source, and use of knowledge in their lives. I view knowledge as the wisdom and insight that one may acquire over time, by personal experiences and influences in life.