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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
