PHI 2010 Fall 2011

Comments on first papers

Rule number one in Philosophy, do not contradict yourself!

Knowledge is the idealization of truth, by a universal common agreement. What this definition states is that knowledge is not only bound by region, but also by time. Knowledge is subject to changes and may not always be agreed upon.

So, by definition, knowledge is based on a universal agreement, but it is something that may not always be agreed upon.

The student is trying to say something about a difficult topic - the changing nature of common-sense. But you need to find a way to state what you think about such difficult topics without tying yourself in a knot like this one.

From the same paper:


With this said, then the definition of knowledge as an agreement means that knowledge is a lie...

This is a non-sequitur: the fact that something is an agreement does not imply that it is a lie. There are such things as honest agreements.
What I think the student is trying to say is that to call something 'knowledge' makes it sound reliable, but many things that we call 'knowledge' are based on conventions that may change. But you need to find a way to explain this making inferences like this one.

The Gettier problem can be solved by adding a fourth condition to knowledge: awareness of the truth...

Another case: Bob and James are co-workers and long-time friends. James has missed work today and Bob believes he is sick. He believes this since James only misses work when he is sick...James is indeed sick. Bob believes in the proposition, it is true, he is justified in believing it, and there are no true defeaters for it, but does Bob know that James is sick? ... Bob would know that James is sick, however, if he would go to his house and see him, lying in his bed, sick.

Remember, this is meant to be a way of avoiding Gettier problems - but it fails. Suppose Bob goes to see James, finds him in bed covered with spots, and concludes he is sick. But James is faking sickness to avoid work: all his visible symptoms are unreal. But, unknown to James, he really is very sick with cancer. It is true he is sick, and Bob has evidence for this. The example is meant to introduce us to something 'awareness of the truth' that rules out Gettier cases. But what is this 'awareness' being in the presence of the sick person, as opposed to hearing about their sickness? The trouble is, that is still compatible with a Gettier-style case. In philosophy, you always need to try to think one step ahead - how will the reader try to criticize what I am saying?

And now, an example of good critical thinking:

Socrates claimed that learning is achieved by recollection, or remembering something the soul knew in a past life, but has forgotten...Recollection should be rejected in that it asserts the existence of an eternal soul, with access to knowledge that the soul has gained before the birth of its possessor. This assertion of an eternal soul is impossible, given that the world's population has doubled in the last 40 years. Based on this fact, half of the people now alive are under 40 years old, and, given the possibility of newly-created eternal souls, are living their first time through life. This would leave them with no knowledge to recollect from before birth.

The argument is spelled out properly, so we can see the precise significance of the fact that the world's population has doubled. It is not quite a conclusive argument, because Socrates' thesis was not that the slave boy recollects knowledge from a previous human life, but that the soul is born with the memory of some kind of encounter with the Forms, beyond the boundaries of time. Still, this is a good argument, and an example of how you should be thinking.

Back to PHI 2010.