Philosophy - Module 3

Knowledge through experience (seeing, hearing, feeling, etc.)

a posteriori knowledge

Knowledge that flows from human reason itself (non-experiential knowledge)

a priori knowledge

__________ __________ argues that it is impossible for your sensual impressions to give you knowledge about the world, whereas __________ __________ refuses to advance any arguments at all—even the argument that knowledge is impossible. The former is an assertion that nothing can be known, while the latter is an absolute suspension of belief because there is no basis for holding any one position over another.

academic skepticism; pyrrhonian skepticism

A statement is "true" so long as it works with our other beliefs.

coherence theory of truth

The justification for our beliefs is structured like a spider's web, wherein the strength of any given area depends on the strength of the surrounding areas.

coherentism

There are two important concepts relating to the notion of distinguishing Non-experiential Knowledge from Experiential Knowledge. This term refers to the notion of truths that could have been false if the world had unfolded differently.

contingency and contingent truth

A statement is "true" if and only if it actually matches up with the way things really are

correspondence theory of truth

This theory of Experiential Knowledge holds that we are able to see the external world exactly as it is; when I see a cow, I see the actual cow itself

direct realism

Some philosophers have argued the following: Since beliefs inform actions, our beliefs always carry a potential for harming others. We therefore ought never to accept a belief without sufficient evidence, because such negligence increases the potential for harm. What is this concept called?

epistemic responsibility

Our justified beliefs are arranged like bricks in a wall. The lowest bricks are the "basic beliefs," and these support the "non-basic" beliefs which are built on top of the basic beliefs. Ground-level, basic, beliefs are self-evident, self-justifying, and thus require no further justification.

foundationalism

This theory of Experiential Knowledge holds that actual objects in themselves do not match the way in which we perceive them. When I look at a cow, I do not actually see the cow as it really is; I only see a mental copy of a cow--my own visual representation of it. So, although we do rely on perception in gaining knowledge, our senses are easily deceived, and so we can never really be certain that we see the object as it truly is (even though we believe it to be really there!).

indirect realism

This aspect of Experiential Knowledge deals with the experience of our own mental states.

introspection

Evidence given in support for a belief is called:

justification

In order to count as "knowledge" about something: a statement must be true; I must actually believe that it is the case; and I must have good reasons in support of my belief.

justified true belief

There are two important concepts relating to the notion of distinguishing Non-experiential Knowledge from Experiential Knowledge. This term refers to the fact that non-experiential truths could never be false, regardless of how differently the world might have been constructed.

necessity and necessary truth

Plato's Allegory of the Cave teaches us at least two things: 1) All of the things which we take to be the most real are actually only shadows of a much greater degree of reality, in the same way that a dream can seem real when in fact there is a much greater degree of reality that exists beyond the dream-world. 2) ___________________________

philosophy is liberating, but also painful

Knowing how to do some task

procedural knowledge

Knowledge about some fact or state of affairs

propositional knowledge

Truth depends on one's conceptual framework. There is no "truth" then; there is only a multitude of perspectives. Since, as Protagoras claimed, "Man is the measure of all things," human beings are the standard of all truths, and it is futile to search for fixed standards of knowledge.

relativism

To be justified in my belief, I do not need to inspect how each belief rests upon others, or connects with surrounding beliefs. Unless I have encountered a reason to doubt my senses, I am justified in trusting them. Unless I have reason to doubt my memory, I am justified in believing that I accurately remember what I ate for breakfast this morning.

reliabilism

Doubt all things—including the notion that all I see is an illusion. I can at least know that I am thinking, and that I have a diversity of ideas in mind. Most amazingly, I have an idea of an infinitely powerful God in mind. But infinite ideas cannot be produced by finite beings. Ideas must therefore come from God. Therefore, I can know that I exist and that God exists.

the cartesean way

There are situations in which one might have a Justified True Belief, and yet they may not actually have knowledge. This concept is called

the gettier problem

Here is one hand. Here is another. Hands are external to me. There are external objects. Basic claims about particular things can't be proved because there is nothing more basic to start from. If I was a brain in a vat, I would not know that I really had hands. I do know that I have hands. So I am not in a vat.

the moorean way

Some skeptics insist that you have to give good reasons for you reasons for your reason to hold any given belief. The chain of reasoning will continue infinitely; every new reason offered will always demand another reason for holding that reason to be reasonable. This is called:

the regress problem

Admit the possibility that my life is a dream, and then give reasons to doubt it by showing that we've no good reason to suppose that. On the contrary, we have two reasons for trusting in common sense: 1) common-sense realism is a simpler theory; 2) the common sense belief that we can actually perceive the world as it is via our senses, corroborates our instinctive beliefs.

the russellian way