/lit/ - Literature

>>3199044
>What does one require to be able to claim to possess knowledge?
>require to claim to possess knowledge

intellect. western philosophy is all intellectual, only intellect is necessary.

looks like you need to rephrase your question, because, obviously, it's not what you're really asking

>define knowledge as supported by experience
-Knowledge based by empirical observation can never be accurately verified. Even when Bayesian probability is applied, gathering supporting evidence, we can never truly verify.

-Knowledge based on rationalism; internal deduction, can never be verified either, and is potentially liable to greater bias and fault than empirical methods.

>What does one require to be able to claim to possess knowledge?
One can never possess true objective knowledge, through experience or any other method, only increase the area of things he thinks he knows. 'Everything is subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is only a function of power and not truth.' -FN

>>3199055

you've obviously never read hume

>What does one require to be able to claim to possess knowledge?

This is a very awkwardly posed question. We can distinguish between the conditions under which you have knowledge, and the conditions under which you are able to claim that you have knowledge.

The first is basically a question about what kind of evidence or other features one's beliefs must possess in order to count as knowledge.

The second has something to do with when you are able or justified in asserting that you possess knowledge, which is entirely different. Presumably, it has something to do with introspective access to one's own mental states plus a certain kind of linguistic competence.

Most likely, however, the question is really supposed to be the first thing, even though it is literally the second thing. If it was written by your professor, then your professor is kind of dumb. Level confusions and all that.

>>3199078
Sorry, it was my mistake, the question is actually:

What is required for one to be entitled to claim knowledge? In your answer, refer to and use ideas from at least two of Plato, Descartes, Hume, and Goodman. Make sure to distinguish kinds of knowledge and discuss the different conditions that attend each one.

Joint = Bowl (not enough pots :( )

>>3199055
Well, intellect isn't really a sufficient basis when writing a thesis on Hume.

I would even say "intellect" is even more abstract than the kinds of knowledge Hume illuminates.

I do know what you're saying though. And to whatever extent I can, I agree. Thanks!

>>3199044

Knowledge is a JTB. Hue.

To be able to claim to have knowledge, one has to be able to claim to have knowledge. Nothing more.

>>3199159
But that's not good enough. A responsible justification shouldn't be a tautology, am I right?

>>3199162
No one asked for a responsible justification. Maybe you think 'it's not good enough', but it is the answer to OP's question.

>>3199155
How do you mean? an you elaborate? Knowledge is justification for itself?

>>3199168

Just parroting what I heard in a college philosophy class once. I suppose it has some merit, knowledge is a justified true belief.

With this interpretation, knowledge is something you believe is true, you're justified in thinking it's true. Of course, there are problems that arise when we think something is true and it turns out it in fact isn't.

Do we have knowledge the sky is blue for example? It's kind of difficult, especially when you're trying to discover the truth of synthetic/a posteriori propositions.

>>3199164
I am the OP, and I am in need of a responsible definition.

"To be able to claim to have knowledge, one has to be able to claim to have knowledge."

Is like saying A=A because A=A. We can't learn anything more about knowledge with this statement.

I am, however, also interested in the more "unknowable" facets of knowledge. I'm thinking it might be a good idea to take the unknowable concepts (probability, problem of induction) and pair them up with knowable facets of knowledge. But even then - things might be too convoluted and maybe even plain inaccurate.

>>3199177
>We can't learn anything more about knowledge with this statement.

Well, you created that problem with your question. You could also try to negate the feature you are asking about: What would it take for someone not to be able to claim to have knowledge? Well, anyone can claim anything, provided they have the general faculties necessary for making claims (speech, etc.).

Of course you think I'm being pedantic, but if you don't learn to ask the correct questions, there is absolutely no sense in answering your questions.

>>3199068
Oh man I love mental masturbation too.

>>3199189

As you progress, you will come to realize that the vast majority of what is perceived as 'progress' in philosophy is merely the result of asking a different question in some clever way that shifts the perspective in order to make something visible that was hidden before, or sometimes the reverse. Naturally, no perspective is as such better than another, it only appears so momentarily because one is enmeshed in a particular problem which is easier to address from one perspective than another.

>>3199189
I don't think you're being pedantic. I'm just having trouble understanding.

"What is required for one to be entitled to claim knowledge?"

What's wrong with the question exactly?

Also, it's not my question. It's Dr. Ronald De Sousa's question. And he got his PhD in philosophy at Princeton.

>>3199191
This picture is interesting in the same way that The Dark Knight Rises or Skyfall are interesting: On the surface level, we have an ideological narrative that creates a binary opposition in a fictional setting which is mapped onto actual social phenomena and serves to invalidate one and empower another. However, the way in which this ideological task is carried out is so inane that one is tempted to read the story on another level, so that two messages appear, encoded at different levels:

A: Look at how dumb philosophy is, it is useless and doesn't progress. In contrast, science is verifiable and has a functioning methodology.

B: Look at how dumb those who worship science are. They cannot into Kuhn and Feyerabend, and think Popper knows what's going on, proving by their ignorance that philosophy is relevant to science and infact the two are not divided so neatly as the picture suggests.

So, by being a very bad plea against the relevance of philosophy viz a viz science, the picture fulfills a meta-ideological function, weakening the hold of positivist scientism (of course this is somewhat naive and based on an optimistic outlook on the reader's capabilities of criticizing the cultural object).

>>3199202
>"What is required for one to be entitled to claim knowledge?"

Now we are talking about entitlement, which is a cultural phenomenon, much more obviously than knowledge.

On a more basic level, I think 'requirement' works better for events, not states. 'Being entitled' suggests a state, a duration of time in which one's entitlement is true, before and after which one's entitlement is false. Generally one distinguishes between necessary and sufficient requirements. Necessary for someone to be entitled to claim knowledge are:

a) Someone has to be.
b) There needs to be a framework which specifies the requirements for being entitled to claim knowledge.
c) Our someone has to fulfill these requirements.

Together, a, b, and c, are sufficient requirements. Of course, the tautology of my original statement has merely been moved into the middle segment of this distinction.

>>3199210

Using Morality and Posit-ism in your argument. Not a good move

He's just saying that philosophy is using structured thought of a bygone era, structured thought that has not been channeled into something physical. While it is important that it sticks around, It sticks around as a relic, as a foundation.

>>3199220

This is where it stays medium interesting:
a) and c) are fairly neutral to context, but b) isn't. There is no answer to the question 'what is the framework that determines who is entitled to claim knowledge?', at least no monolithic answer across time and space. Depending on the cultural context, which varies through time and space (it's actually a little bit more complex and arbitrary and subjective than this), different frameworks apply, there might be competing frameworks at work at any given point (which goes against Foucault's comments on the episteme), and there is no 'neutral' framework for assessing these different frameworks.

This last point is also the reason why epistemological relativism cannot be kept from sliding into epistomological nihilism without an act of faith, at which point the original relativism becomes pure window dressing.

>>3199222
>Using Morality and Posit-ism in your argument. Not a good move

Where do I use morality? Do you mean positivism and if so, where do I use it?

>>3199222
>>He's just saying that philosophy is using structured thought of a bygone era, structured thought that has not been channeled into something physical. While it is important that it sticks around, It sticks around as a relic, as a foundation.

Where is he saying that and what do you mean be 'channelled into something physical'?

>>3199220
Entitlement shouldn't be interpreted as being cultural product. That's neither here nor there. Think of entitlement in logical terms only.

Entitled to claim knowledge = justified in having knowledge. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than that for the question to work.

Your enumerations all seem pretty "duh" to me, no offense.

A) A non-statement considering you were already given premise A in the question.

B) This is precisely what we're trying to answer! What IS the framework?

C) Of course somebody has to fulfill these requirements, is that not contained within the word "requirement" itself? Premise C is also given in the question.

Your breakdown isn't so much tautological anymore as it is just a kindof useless expansion of the question, you don't actually answer anything here.

>>3199237
Dropping philosophy bombs

>>3199237
Thank you, sir!

>>3199227
>>3199222
>>3199220
>>3199195
>>3199189
>>3199164
>>3199159
>>3199055
I feel, for the first time, justified in the knowledge that pseudointellectualism is real, and not just a boogeyman insult.

>>3199237
>>Entitled to claim knowledge = justified in having knowledge.

Well, apart from the fact that this is not true and that there is no 'entitlement' in 'purely logical terms', why don't you just ask about justification instead of 'entitlement to claim' if that is what you mean? The problem you create by calling it 'justified in having knowledge' is a different one, because you are basically implying that there are two kinds of knowledge: Unjustified knowledge and justified knowledge. This is a definition that is different from the 'justified true belief' above, but if you have any reason for introducing it, go ahead.

>>B) This is precisely what we're trying to answer! What IS the framework?

see >>3199227

>>3199264
>>I feel, for the first time, justified in the knowledge that pseudointellectualism is real, and not just a boogeyman insult.

Yes, the inflation of the argument was unnecessary, but I only did it to point out that the question contains useless elements, that is 'entitled' and 'claim'.

>>3199237
>Your enumerations all seem pretty "duh" to me, no offense.

They seem 'duh', but they are not. Of course I don't answer the question "What is required for one to be entitled to claim knowledge?", but if you follow the thread closely you will see that the question I was answering is 'What's wrong with the question exactly?', and I am answering it by showing the different parts of the question, which you now have judged yourself as superfluous. Contrary to what you maintain, premise A and premise C are not given in the question any more than premise B, which is also what I pointed out in my very first 'tautological' post. This is the case because 'in logical terms only' this is a valid model of the requirements needed. Sure, you can model the requirements in a different fashion, but I chose this one in order to point out that what you want to know is not what you are asking for.

>>3199264
Sarcasm to me? Or legit? If legit, he still doesn't get it, so I obviously didn't do a good enough job.

>>3199282

I don't know how to put it any more simply, but I'll try.

It is the case that "entitlement to claim to have knowledge" IS IN FACT EQUAL TO "justified in having knowledge" IN THIS QUESTION.

We are not talking about the KIND OF entitlement we would be talking about if we were having a discussion on ROYAL entitlement or PATERNAL entitlement.

We are simply talking about the question:

"What is required for one to be entitled to claim knowledge?"

YES! You MAY ask, "how am I justified in having knowledge?" That is a very similar question and it will suffice, BUT it is clearer to ask for the SPECIFIC "requirements" rather than "giving your knowledge justice" although these are two semantic points.

As for the specific requirements, what are they? What are the pre-requisites for having knowledge? and yes, indeed you would be right in saying there is justified knowledge and unjustified knowledge, however it still doesn't advance our answer at all.

Kind of tired of beating around the bush here. Clarifying semantics for you is not helping.

>>3199318
Entitled is there because others would have to agree, so you don't get the dumb answer of "in order to claim knowledge, you have to have proper agency to do such"
And claim is there because the question isn't "what is knowledge" which would get the "JTB or whatever the two conditions descartes said were" answer, it's more along the lines of "how would you know you know, you know?"

>>3199338
YES! Exactly!

>>3199318
I didn't judge parts of the question as superfluous.

I judged your post as superfluous.

<What is required for one to be entitled to claim knowledge?>

Awareness of the futility of every other knowledge..except this one...

>>3199356
Can you elaborate?

do you mean the awareness of some knowledge must come with the awareness of the futility of all knowledge that contradicts it?

>>3199338
>Entitled is there because others would have to agree

--> Cultural relativism

>>3199338
>>"how would you know you know, you know?"

A little bit of the above, that is you know you know because others agree that you do know, and a little bit of feeling. However, the problem with your own perspective on it is that you could think you know, but later conclude that you were wrong.

<Could you elaborate?>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2j578jTBCY

>>3199376
God, leave.

He's saying other people have to agree because its often a product of a correct answer: people's agreement!

It's not cultural relativism, you big wank.

>>3199376
Woah, buddy! We can get all postmodernist later, but I was just trying to explain what the question was asking, and the question is in the context of modern philosophy, so that line of thinking, while perfectly acceptable follow, is a little out of place.

>>3199338
Or to put it in a different way: The question 'who are those others who have to agree?' as well as the question 'how do I know I know' are ultimately decisionistic and not legalist, that is they ultimately come down to a decision you make not an evaluation according to higher principles (of course you can put it in terms of higher principles, but in that case you just make a choice to adhere to these principles, so it's decisionistic again).

>>3199385
Cute. But I did actually ask you a question.
A question that hasn't been answered yet

>>3199399
What the fuck are you even saying? This is an unbelievable derailment of the topic.

>>3199388
>God, leave.

no.

>>3199388
>It's not cultural relativism, you big wank.

Depending on your cultural context, people will agree to all sorts of things, and you might also think you are correct in knowing something. Of course this is culturally relative.

>>3199390
>in the context of modern philosophy

a) this is context specific, so not the original question, but one specific framework and

b) this is the question 'what have the experts in my field said about X', so not a specifically philosophic question, but an academic exercise.

>>3199129
The notion of knowledge began with plato's incorporation of the forms to distinguish between that which can be known and that which is sensibly or apparently so. This distinction represents that of true opinion (belief of the senses) and knowledge (justified true belief). Justified true belief is knowledge for plato - something that is only representative of awareness of the forms; true belief is awareness of the world of the senses, the empirical world. This, however, is not the case in modern epistemology: there are a number of caveats that have been idenitifed by Gettier - a 20th century american philosopher. But this isnt something that's typically discussed on an undergraduate level, so we'll stick with JTB. Really, all JTB is is a belief one holds with reason that is true - if this wasn't obvious before. The next question becomes: does the belief i have rely on an unwarranted belief? Does knowing require an infinite regress of beliefs justifying prior beliefs, a circularity of beliefs, or a foundational belief that precedes beliefs. Does the mechanism by which I believe change things? Is it not knowledge to claim a = a or "this appears blue"?

Suppose I say "A appears blue", is this dependent on another belief or the mechanism by which I perceive? If it is based on the mechanism in itself, then foundational beliefs exist by which I can claim knowledge.

the subject is EXTREMELY vast, any particular questions would help.

>>3199413
Yes, but it's also a fucking homework thread, derailing it is the king's road.

>>3199044
Make an argument about a priori knowledge.

>>3199443
What portion of your post is best fit to formulate a thesis from the question, in your opinion? Needless to say all the information there warrants discussion.

>>3199210
>Unjustified comparisons to film
>"ideological"

Zizek as fuck. 10/10 perfect /lit/poster

>>3199677

Any defense of a specific mode of knowing would be interesting. You could defend foundationalism - and say "for one to possess knowledge, their beliefs must derive from some axiomatic given statement" - from a cartesian standpoint - or platonic, or humean. If you stick with Hume, you could argue for perception being the method of belief-formation by which beliefs arise, and beliefs are axiomatic on an empirical basis.

an interesting epistemological discussion in recent literature is that of epistemic contextualism, where the truth-value of a given proposition is dependent on the context - or situation in which it is presented. so if i say "A is a cat", even if A is not a cat I am right in saying A is cat - supposing im not lying to myself - by virtue of being presented with a context in which i had no other choice but to come to such a conclusion. if it is the case that A is not a cat, and evidence is presented, then i was still right in my original statement based on the context.

>>3200243

I can justify the comparisons if you want to, the short version is this: In The Dark Knight Rises, the villain stands for the Occupy movement, in Skyfall the villain stands for hacktivism and Wikileaks. The rest of the argument is structurally identical to my reading of the picture, the 'turnaround' would rest on the retarded construction of the villains and the tenuous relationship between their actions and motivations.

>>3199399
go to bed, Gödel

>possess knowledge

youredoingitwrong.jpeg