Knowledge

Chances are you don’t think we have knowledge about most things normal people think they know. Whats your argument for epistemic skepticism?

first i’d have to ask you what you meant by knowledge

i’m counting five fingers on my hand, and consider the fact that there are, in fact, five fingers there to be true

true for me, that is, for now

but there are many more kinds of knowledge - yet many of those many more kinds, if not all, are based on this: what am i allowed to assume?

i can’t tell you what i know unless you first tell me what i can assume

If this thread ever gets off ground, this is bound to come up, so I’ll say a few things about it. Questions I have, really.

Gettier managed to break the traditional definition of knowledge which stated that a justified true belief is both sufficient and necessary for knowledge by showing the three conditions aren’t sufficient, i.e., can’t handle all cases. Meaning there are some cases where it seems someone doesn’t have knowledge yet the three conditions say he does.

But how extensive is Gettier’s damage? Does it eliminate the possibility of knowledge until a fourth condition can be added to the jtb which can handle Gettier cases? Or does the JTB still work for all cases except gettier cases?

amor fati,
You have my permission to assume anything you want. If you’re a skeptic, then you’re welcome to tell me how you define knowledge, and then based on your definition why you think we have no knowledge. If you’re not a skeptic, then I don’t know. I guess you can help me heckle the skeptics. Or you can tell me about the different types of knowledge.

okay, let us begin with this assumption: i know myself

is that fair?

i ask because, without that, i’m not sure how any other knowledge would be possible

i would then have to declare skepticism

Nope. I asked you to define knowledge, meaning to give the conditions which you think must be met before someone can be said to have knowledge. I have nothing with which to scrutinize your claim. Once you do this then we can put it to practical use and see whether your belief about your self is knowledge or not.

How can I say this is knowledge or not if you haven’t told me what are you think the conditions for knowledge; what it means to have knowledge?

Perhaps before knowing anything at all one must first know one’s self; I don’t believe it, or at least it doesn’t seem to be to be true on the face of it, but this is irrelevant for right now. What is relevant is what knowledge is, what it means, the conditions which must be met if we are to say this or that is knowledge.

I’ll start by saying these three things:

Knowledge isn’t a natural kind. It’s not something observable in nature, like water, where you can see that it is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen. You won’t get anywhere by going out and looking to find knowledge.

Knowledge is based in intuition. We feel that it’s appropriate to say “He knows,” in one case, and “He doesn’t know,” in another. The challenge of epistemology is coming up with a formula that always gives the same answer as our intuitions–failing this, the formula is bad–and, even more importantly, a formula that also gives a clear answer where our intuitions are confused and don’t have an immediate answer.

Knowledge must be infallible. In other words, for S to know that P, there must not be a possibility that S is wrong. If you know, then you’re not wrong. Doesn’t make sense to say, “Jim knows he locked his car, but he could be wrong.”

JTB is false because it contains a false premise: belief.

Knowledge is based upon Certainty, not Belief. And Belief can never qualify as Certainty.

“But why???” you may ask… and I will leave the question to you to figure it out.

I don’t get it, but I suppose there’s no need for justification, either?

i’m not sure it is irrelevant, but rather indeed seems very relevant

how can one claim to know something without fist knowing that which makes the claim?

chew on that one for awhile, cuz there’s a good deal to chew

How can anyone claim to know without the verb “to know” first meaning anything?"

So in defining knowledge you must first be able to put knowledge into practical use? That’s positively retarded.

Anybody else have an opinion about knowledge?

One cannot have an “opinion” about knowledge inasmuch as I cannot form an “opinion” around the fact that I was born.

I know I was born; therefore knowledge cannot be contextualized through mere-opinion.

I have no idea what you’re talking about, man. Knowing you were born necessarily means you have some sort of opinion about yourself being born, or some idea in your head, or some representation, about your own birth which to me means belief or opinion.

But I must say I don’t like where this discussion is heading. I’d like a skeptic from the analytic tradition to add some input in here if they please.

This is false because it is not your mere “idea” of being born that made you alive. It was the process of being born that made you alive.

Therefore Knowledge cannot be associated with Opinion, at all. Your blood & flesh as a human animal is proof of your conception & birth.

This Reasoning cannot be Opinionated, at all. It is not up-for-dispute. It is Absolute-Certainty.

I’m not saying my idea that I was born actually caused myself to be born. I’m saying to have knowledge about any particular thing you must have that particular thing represented in your mind in some fashion, and it must be represented in your mind as it actually is in the real world, i.e., your representation must be true to the facts-----in other other words, you must believe in order to know.

Knowledge doesn’t have to cause anything in the real world in order to be knowledge. I don’t need to have caused my own birth with my knowledge in order to have knowledge. This is just utter nonesense. To have knowledge I basically just have to represent in mind the facts accurately via some evidence or reliable belief causing mechanism.

In of itself, my flesh and blood don’t prove anything. It is when I see that other things made up of flesh and blood be born that I infer that I, like those other things made up of flesh and blood was probably born as well.

I think the problem rests with your conception of opinion/belief. I don’t mean to sound rude, but I don’t wish to continue this angle.

subject S declares a proposition p

p presupposes S, and S must also presuppose itself

what must S presuppose about itself so to be justified in making proposition p?

we have objectivity, and we have subjectivity, but what is that which stands as the relation between the two?

You seem to be saying to me that your (Actual) birth can be relegated to the realm of Opinion.

I emphatically & enthusiastically-disagree with you. Your birth is Absolute. Your birth is Certain.

To deny this FACT is to deny your very-own-Existence as a Human Animal. You would become a Nihilist and Solipsist.

I did not bring-up Causality here; you did…

Wrong, your flesh proves that you are Human and Material. Your blood proves that you are liquid and flowing, moving within thyself.

But this topic is about Knowledge (of thyself); is it naught???

My statements very clearly-state that you cannot reduce your (Self)-Knowledge to belief, opinion, or conjecture.

Therefore you have no choice but to embrace yourself as a living-creature. You have no alternative to self-destructive Nihilism here…

Tell me where my problem is; I am listening.

And may you please tell me why you do not wish to continue this angle???

Or will I be left to my own presumptions on your behalf?

Okay! Great.
S believes that P.

We’re almost there.

How can a proposition p presuppose anything, much less the subject S which declared it? This means nothing.

Sure, I guess…why not. S presupposes he exists and that he is declaring proposition P. He doesn’t have to presuppose that he knows himself, or that he is making these claims for it makes absolutely no sense to, while in the process of defining knowledge, to start by using the concept ‘knowledge’ with respect to any one thing, namely the “I” or “self”. It’s like…well, I can’t think of anything…wait…it’s like somebody trying to come up with the first ever design for a flying car taking his flying car to the shop to get some pencils.

1. S exists
2. S is making proposition P

Quite honestly these two words objectivity and subjectivity only serve to muddle an issue. Let’s just avoid them.

S, in addition to positing itself, must also suppose it stands in a certain relation to p, so to make it true

i still think the relation is important

there are difficult questions at hand, you know

brush them aside all you’d like, but they’re not going anywhere