Challenging Justified True Belief: Fault in Definition
Traditionally, Plato Philosophers have analyzed knowledge as being a justified true belief. Based on the views of different philosophers, one can be pessimistic about the possibility of this definition. I will elaborate on my reasoning by arguing from the thesis that other philosopher’s have challenged ‘justified true belief’ with analytical propositions that validate the need to contest Plato’s argument.
1. Explanation of Justified True Belief Plato philosophers defined knowledge as being justified true belief. Thus, a belief is knowledge if it is true and there are reasonable and necessary assertions to justify it. If these criteria are met, a proposition can be deemed knowledge. For example, Person A believes ‘all chefs cook’. Person A is justified due to a priori knowledge, which is independent of experience and derived by reason. No external experience is required, only understanding of the definition. This analytical proposition demonstrates that the act of cooking is contained within the concept of being a chef. Although this definition provides necessary and sufficient conditions, as demonstrated above, there are Philosophers who have challenged Plato’s notion, providing pessimism about knowledge as justified true belief.
2. Gettier
Challenges arose from Gettier’s article “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” He refuted the traditional definition of knowledge by questioning …show more content…
Since we cannot be there is uncertainty in of the world we live in and how our senses perceive it, we must be sceptical of Plato’s definition of knowledge. Although it is unrealistic to question all knowledge, we must recognizing the benefits of being critical to our surroundings as we may assist with discovering something from out of our realm of
Traditionally, Plato Philosophers have analyzed knowledge as being a justified true belief. Based on the views of different philosophers, one can be pessimistic about the possibility of this definition. I will elaborate on my reasoning by arguing from the thesis that other philosopher’s have challenged ‘justified true belief’ with analytical propositions that validate the need to contest Plato’s argument.
1. Explanation of Justified True Belief Plato philosophers defined knowledge as being justified true belief. Thus, a belief is knowledge if it is true and there are reasonable and necessary assertions to justify it. If these criteria are met, a proposition can be deemed knowledge. For example, Person A believes ‘all chefs cook’. Person A is justified due to a priori knowledge, which is independent of experience and derived by reason. No external experience is required, only understanding of the definition. This analytical proposition demonstrates that the act of cooking is contained within the concept of being a chef. Although this definition provides necessary and sufficient conditions, as demonstrated above, there are Philosophers who have challenged Plato’s notion, providing pessimism about knowledge as justified true belief.
2. Gettier
Challenges arose from Gettier’s article “Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?” He refuted the traditional definition of knowledge by questioning …show more content…
Since we cannot be there is uncertainty in of the world we live in and how our senses perceive it, we must be sceptical of Plato’s definition of knowledge. Although it is unrealistic to question all knowledge, we must recognizing the benefits of being critical to our surroundings as we may assist with discovering something from out of our realm of