Immanuel Kant's The Tripartite Analysis Of Knowledge
Kant explains in his publication that there are two types of knowledge: a priori and a posteriori. A priori knowledge is knowledge that is independent of all experience. One example of this is all bachelors are unmarried. No experience is necessary to prove that this statement is true. A posteriori knowledge is opposite of a priori; that is, a posteriori knowledge is knowledge derived from experience.
To add, knowledge is a justified true belief. There are three separate components of what knowledge truly is, known as the Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge. First off, the …show more content…
As distrust and opposition grew towards the King and Queen of France, Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, so did the notion of a revolution. Many citizens of France blamed the financial crisis on the Queen due to her lavish spending, thus the name ‘Madame Deficit’ was coined. It is a common myth that during the March of Versailles, Marie Antoinette, after receiving word about the women’s revolt, was quoted, saying “let them eat cake.” Although this was later proven false, it did not matter in regards to how factually accurate the statement was, nor was it important if the event even took place. The notion of it existed, thus it “fuelled the flame” of the revolution and shaped her into a malicious icon of the French monarchy and the issues of it. Not only did it impact society back then, the effects of this “event” are still being felt today. Events such as this determine on how society views an influential individual, and how they are being depicted in media. To this day, Marie Antoinette continues to be written about as Queen who enjoyed nothing more but spending France’s money. Whether this is true is impossible to say, nevertheless, the effects of it are still …show more content…
Most likely they would not, as proven in the outline of the Tripartite Analysis of Knowledge, the beliefs have to be true. Obviously, the events mentioned are neither factually accurate nor did they take place. Without truth, knowledge becomes a belief.
Most or all historical reports contain some form of bias. As the common saying goes, “history is written by the winners.” Therefore, it is incredibly difficult to determine whether a historical account is truthful or prejudicial, thus making it also difficult to ascertain if the information provided is knowledge or simply, a belief.
As shown, it simply does not matter if an event needs to take place in order to have an impact. Simply, the event does not take place, only the idea of it taking place needs to exist, thus disproving the causal relationship