As i’m doing this assignment very very late, my weekend consisted of studying for exams which, i think we can all agree, is not very aesthetically pleasing. What i found interesting however, is that much with art you may not understand, as time progresses, you may find the piece more pleasing which somehow was the case with studying. As i wasted the hours away looking at various formulas for chemistry, i found that the diagrams and many arrows of the biology diagrams and notes were suddenly much more appealing that they had been the day before.This leads me to believe that not only is your view of aesthetics different from mine, it may be different from your own depending on what else you’re doing or even what time you view the thing in which you are trying to define. In conclusion, i believe that aesthetics is obviously subjective but to even more of a degree than we know, with environmental factors actually changing your viewpoint from one time to another.
Over the epistemology unit, I’ve formulated the metaphor that knowledge is like the video game Mario. You start at a base point, then have to dodge potential logic pitfalls and other blockades including opposing ideas that are actively trying to kill yours (goombas, koopas, etc.). at some point you will be able to reach the end This conclusion will also let you move on to a tougher, more challenging idea in which your hypothesis will once again be tested. At some point you will reach a ‘boss level’ in which you must face an extremely tough opponent to be able to finish off your hypothesis and move onto the next one which has it’s own unique set of challenges. Similar to the Mario games again, the secret exits in levels represent an epiphany which renders the rest of the hurdles to reach the conclusion unimportant as this single realization has transcended all the other pitfalls in that particular logical fight. At some point you may unlock all the inner knowledge you can possibly handle and defeat the final boss to unlock all understanding. It is possible, but there is a large chance you may die first.
For this Phil’s day off, i went more basic ideas than towards philosophical experiments. I tried to learn how to juggle and see how i did or didn’t manage to unlock my inner knowledge (based upon my theory of all knowledge being innate). Now as i started, i was absolutely horrid but from my many failed attempts i managed to get to the point of being able to juggle 3 balls at a time for about a minute before giving up on the process completely as i am much more result focused than a person who may enjoy the exercise of learning new things. Now, this experiment did and didn’t backup my theory as while you could say that as i was going along, my inner knowledge is being unlocked by this experience; it can also be pointed out that in this case the only way i am gaining knowledge is through experience. Unfortunately, i think this would be the problem for any experiment i may devise as my theory still has use for the mechanics of other theories such as learning from experience and learning through understanding.
For the Epistemological discussions, I talked with a variety of people regarding my theory of all knowledge being innate and unlocking it is a matter of finding the right experience. Unfortunately, though disagreements were commonplace as this theory is against most other ideals of knowledge in some way, i could not find a well formulated argument that managed to refute all the points of my idea as while it is a rather outlandish theory, it manages to introduce elements of most other ideas as it has a place for experience and base understanding within it which seemed to be the 2 major opposing ideas present in the class during the discussion period.
For my reading, i once again went to the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy to figure out what parts of their post i agreed with. In it, i found they made the statement that
According to TK, knowledge that p is, at least approximately, justified true belief (JTB). False propositions cannot be known. Therefore, knowledge requires truth. A proposition S doesn’t even believe can’t be a proposition that S knows. Therefore, knowledge requires belief. Finally, S‘s being correct in believing that p might merely be a matter of luck. Therefore, knowledge requires a third element, traditionally identified as justification. Thus we arrive at a tripartite analysis of knowledge as JTB: S knows that p if and only if p is true and S is justified in believing that p. According to this analysis, the three conditions — truth, belief, and justification — are individually necessary and jointly sufficient for knowledge.
(TK-traditional knowledge) – (S-Subject trying to obtain knowledge) – (P-proposition in which knowledge is to be obtained) – (JTB- justified true belief)
now, this is an interesting analysis as it seems to say that knowledge is justified true belief. However, it also says that a guessed truth that is later proven true is justified. Now, for me at least, this seems to contradict their conclusion that logic is a justified true belief. While I agree that knowledge must be believed by a person for it to be true, as what you don’t know is not a conclusion within itself, but a narrowing of the field in what conclusion you are looking for. Back to guessing truth however, someone’s true belief is reason enough for the knowledge to be known. As according to the article, guessed truths have the ability to be proven later, and you can disprove it now, but with the opportunity to be review and proven true, the true belief or any supposedly justified true belief can neither be proven nor disproven as it has the ability to be found as the opposite later on. Because of this, i believe knowledge is a person’s true belief subject to nothing but their own views through how they interpret the world. Due to the last sentence being the guiding principle of my view of knowledge, i must conclude that knowledge is also subjective as we will each interpret it our own way through our minds. This goes further for me in that with the revelation that all knowledge is interpreted by our minds, all knowledge must come from within as to be able to interpret our surroundings, we must have some innate understanding of what is going on. Therefore, i believe that as humans, we all know everything there is to know, it’s just a matter of finding the right experiences to unlock that innate understanding.
I really did not wish to get into anything serious today so i decided to use an old Monty Python sketch for my argument assignment, and here are the premises:
Premise 1: The parrot is not dead but resting
Premise 2: the parrot did not wake up when hit against the table as it had been stunned in that action
Premise 3: when bought, the parrot was not moving as it had been squawking for a while prior, and was asleep
Premise 4: if the parrot had not been nailed upright on the perch, it would have escaped through the bars
Conclusion: the parrot is alive
Arguments: the customer argues that the bird is dead as it fell off the perch it had been nailed to when he got home, despite assurances from the clerk that the parrot was just asleep. He further goes on to mention how various techniques that should wake the bird have failed. The clerk manages to refute the points with the premises above, and although they do not directly lead to the conclusion, his argument is more a refutation of the customer’s than a stand-alone idea.
Soundness: All the premises are false, and therefore the argument can neither be considered true nor sound. The premises, though starkly false, do manage to refute all of the points brought up by the customer in this argument. The argument is still not valid however, as even with all the premises being true, there are still ways in which death could be proven such as heart rate and body temperature.