Theory of Knowledge

Dalisay, Ronel Rovera
III – Iuvenes Fortes
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
1. Are knowledge and belief the same? State your justification.
No, knowledge and belief are not the same. Knowledge is always a relationship between
the human subject and a portion of reality and it generally takes a true proposition as its
object. It must be based on truthfulness and certainty because the absence of truth is the
absence of knowledge. On the other hand, belief takes either true or false proposition as its
object. It is a subjective form of acquiring knowledge because I believe what I already know
whether this is justifiable or not, truth or false. Therefore, the state of belief can be disputed.
It can be criticized and proved as wrong.
Belief in itself can be considered as knowledge if it is based on truth and facts and if it is
justifiable supported by evidences. If a belief doesn’t possess truthfulness, it doesn’t
constitute knowledge.
2. What is truth-condition analysis?

The truth condition analysis is a method that has been used for decades to define
knowledge. It is the response to the method of counterexample to make the definition of
knowledge counterexample-free. Many epistemologists have proposed other methods to
dispute the truth condition analysis and there are some others who still believed to retain the
method itself. If we will base our definition of knowledge on every counterexample that we
have encountered we already disproved the original definition of knowledge and it becomes
ad hoc. According to the truth condition analysis, one of the requirements of having a good
definition of knowledge it should not be ad hoc. It means that the definition itself should not
be tailored as it counters specific problem. It must be a general one that is usable by all. So,
the truth component should be intrinsically included in the act of defining knowledge.
3. What is the traditional understanding of knowledge?

The traditional understanding of knowledge is that knowledge as justified true belief. It
similarly goes this way. If a person P has a belief Q. The Q in fact is true. If P is justified in
believing Q, then P knows Q. For example, I believe that I have two feet, I do in fact that I
have two feet, and I have my good justification for believing I have two feet, because I am
using them to walk.
We can know something through believing but not all of our beliefs are true. It is
vulnerable to dispute. So, therefore, belief must entail the truth, because right believing is a
justified believing. For a belief to be true it requires justification. True belief should not be by
chance or luck because getting the truth is not either by chance or luck. It strictly requires
evidences to defend a right to be sure and certain. Belief becomes true and certain if it is
bounded and proven by justification. Therefore, knowledge needs some kind of reasons to
support that the proposition believed is true.
4. How did Gettier challenge the traditional view of knowledge?

The traditional view of knowledge has been attacked by Edmund Gettier by presenting
his counterexamples to dispute the justified true belief. According to him the truth is reached
by chance, it is a kind of luck. And the so called justified true belief is not necessary and
sufficient for knowledge. He would like to introduce that a JTB fails to become knowledge.
We can see the flow of Gettier’s method of counterexamples. He will start on his premise
as a justified belief to meet the justification prerequisite for knowledge. Then he will add an
element of bad luck/chance that would normally block the justified belief from being true.
And lastly, he will add a recipe of good luck that blots out the bad, because of this, belief
ends up true somehow. This case of double luck made the definition of knowledge hard to
arrive.
5. Formulate a case that will fall to Gettier’s problem.

I see a grayish feathered animal in the field that looks like a duck. I form my belief that
there is a duck in the field. And, indeed, there is a duck in the field. But I cannot see it. So, I
have a justified true belief that a duck is in the field. But what I see is not a duck, it is a
grayish feathered chicken that looks like a duck. The unseen duck in the field is hidden from
the view.
6. What is virtue?
According to Aristotle the highest good is virtue. Every human being has a possession of
virtue that emphasizes their roles in the society. It is the property of human beings written in
in their souls. Intellectual virtues are the properties of human beings that seek for truth which
is very significant for the longings of intellectual goods. It is more of scientific explanation
especially for the search of truth and certainty. Moral virtues are the properties of human
beings that seek directly which acts are good and bad. It is more on ethical dimension that
standardized the moral norms of the self and of others. We could evaluate one’s attitude by
the concept of virtue.
A virtue has two components. The motivational and success component of virtue. The
motivational component of a virtue makes the moral properties of persons from a good
motive. It is the emotion that institute directions for an action. It is to be said that we are well
motivated when we do a certain act. That motivation must be rooted from the good, an
ethical one. On the other hand, the success component of a virtue constitutes reliabilities that
are needed in bringing about the motivation’s end. And that was virtuously motivated.
7. Is virtue essential in understanding knowledge? State your justification.

Yes, virtue is very essential in understanding knowledge. The human subject aspires to
understand and define knowledge which is in nature itself has a normative component value.
Virtue helps human to desire and understand knowledge in a very noblest way. The virtue of
goodness and praiseworthiness should intrinsically include to find the truth. As a matter of
fact, not all people do the ethical form of having knowledge. The definition of knowledge
must make success in reaching the truth an intrinsic aspect of that which makes knowledge
good.
Virtue motivates us to desire which is good to define and understand knowledge. As
humans possess the properties of intellectual and moral virtue, they should choose what is
noble, what is virtuous. We always aspire for something which is good, we do not aspire for
something which is bad.
8. What is the definition of knowledge proposed by Zagzebski?

The definition of knowledge proposed by Zagzebski is clearly modeled on virtue theory
of ethics and that is an act of intellectual virtue. It is truly that knowledge is cognitive contact
with reality because the human subject is always in relation to the portion of reality.
She tries to integrate the concept of knowledge into the ethical theory. As a human being,
our intellectual virtue is the aspiration to know what is true because what is true is always
noble, it is always good. Zagzebski does not literally exclude the moral virtue to intellectual
virtue. According to her, they should go together in defining knowledge. But there are some
instances that we need to have a definition of both of them separately. Intellectual virtue
takes the concept of right act and the moral virtue takes the concept of pure virtue of ethics.

Theory of Knowledge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory of Knowledge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theory of Knowledge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Dalisay, Ronel Rovera

III – Iuvenes Fortes

2. What is truth-condition analysis?

3. What is the traditional understanding of knowledge?

4. How did Gettier challenge the traditional view of knowledge?

5. Formulate a case that will fall to Gettier’s problem.

7. Is virtue essential in understanding knowledge? State your justification.

8. What is the definition of knowledge proposed by Zagzebski?

You might also like