Classical Epistomology

[Anonymous No.9935434]

Not sure if I'm interpreting this passage regarding what the author names the "epistemological fallacy" in classical and Hellenistic epistemology correctly.
Thoughts?
The book is A New History of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny.

[Anonymous No.9936187]

pls

[Anonymous No.9936613]

>>9935434
How are you interpreting it?

[Anonymous No.9937380]

>>9936613
The way I grasp it, knowlege has a transient quality and shouldn't be fatalistically tied to truth, because that would imply that people who deal with knowledge cannot err. But isn't infallibility a requirement of true knowledge?
Maybe I'm a brainlet.

[Anonymous No.9937471]

>>9937380
You seem like you're just thinking about it too hard. What do you mean by true knowledge? I wouldn't say it's quite transient but it does and can change.

[Anonymous No.9937549]

>>9937471
You're probably right. A more accurate description of that particular quality of knowledge I was describing is already provided in the excerpt:
>[...]knowledge must be resolute, excluding the possibility of being rightly converted, at a later stage, to a different view.
What I get from this passage is that the fallacy is rooted in not admiting that knowledge is bound by conditions that must be met in order for it to be true. These conditions can change, so knowledge isn't necessarily true all the time.

[Anonymous No.9937635]

>>9937549
You seem like you get it, but you could even say that knowledge can never be true. The truth is like the Kantian thing-in-itself and knowledge is our phenomenal understanding of it.

[Anonymous No.9937667]

>>9937635
Perfect, thanks.

[Anonymous No.9937786]

>>9937667
You're welcome. I've actually been reading this since Tuesday so if you want to talk about anything else just post again.