On 11/7/2012 5:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Nov 2012, at 03:42, meekerdb wrote:

On 11/5/2012 8:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Even with the Theaetetus’ definition of truth, which I find to be highly original and amazingly ingenious, we are still left without an explanation as to how the accidental coincidence of a Platonic Truth and an actual fact of the world occurs. Your idea reminds me of Spinoza and Whitehead's attempt at an Occasionalist explanation of mind-body interactions.

That's why most philosophers don't consider true belief to constitute knowledge. Gettier's paradox implies that something more is needed - usually a causal connection between the belief and the fact that makes it true.

A causal, or a deductive relation (which is already a form of "cause"). This was already answered by Theaetetus, when he get the true *justified* opinion.

Bruno

Hi Brent and Bruno,

Again: we are still left without an explanation as to how the accidental coincidence of a Platonic Truth and an actual fact of the world occurs. What is the mechanism? Do the analogies of Plato still work? My confusion is in how do we explain the relationship 'between' a disjoint pair of facts. Gettier's paradox <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/#GET> seems to still have teeth unless 'or' is restricted somehow. I am trying to make my analysis with respect to many observers, not a single observer and a universe.

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to