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.