>Knowledge is a justified true belief. So this is the

An aspiration.

>>9483044
A justified true belief doesn't necessarily need to be desirable though. There's truth in cynicism.
aka: > the dark side

>>9483083
There are many people who desire the ability to desire the undesirable.

>>9483099
this isn't the joe rogan thread buddy

>>9483099
undesirable universally or undesirable to them?

>>9483103
Truth is truth. Belief comes from the will to have faith in what is believed to be true.

File: 26369_edmund_gettier[1].jpg (54KB, 790x659px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 790x659px

*blocks your episteme*

>>9483105
not without empirical evidence fucker, don't expect everyone to go looking for the ocean when they can only see the stream

>>9483105
>Truth is truth.
Truth is false.

>>9483118
>Truth is false.
Is this statement true?

>>9483115
ok anon ur a dumbfuck... if no one sees the ocean and doesn't believe it, waves still rise and fall.

>>9483115
Plato and Socrates haven't taught you a single thing, huh?

>>9483121
If I so desire.

>>9483103
Inconceivable at the moment.
I don't wish to harm children, but I wish to have the mental ability to control myself to the point where I could do so.
There are people who act it out.

>>9483043
It's contentious whether Plato really thought this. From my reading of the Phaedo (or whatever one had the slave-boy in it) knowledge is more than justified true belief

>>9483121
No

>>9483043
Definitely not. Plato actually finds this definition to be insufficient and Gettier decisively demonstrated that knowledge must be something more than this. One of the best example of actual progress in philosophy

>>9483111
Nice trips.

>>9483043
That does not appear in the Greeks. Plato though has "true opinion with an account (logos)" at one point, and depending on how you construe the "account" you can avoid Gettier problems.

Suppose that Smith and Jones have applied for a certain job. And suppose that Smith has strong evidence for the following conjunctive proposition: (d) Jones is the man who will get the job, and Jones has ten coins in his pocket.

Smith's evidence for (d) might be that the president of the company assured him that Jones would in the end be selected, and that he, Smith, had counted the coins in Jones's pocket ten minutes ago. Proposition (d) entails: (e) The man who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.

Let us suppose that Smith sees the entailment from (d) to (e), and accepts (e) on the grounds of (d), for which he has strong evidence. In this case, Smith is clearly justified in believing that (e) is true.

But imagine, further, that unknown to Smith, he himself, not Jones, will get the job. And, also, unknown to Smith, he himself has ten coins in his pocket. Proposition (e) is then true, though proposition (d), from which Smith inferred (e), is false. In our example, then, all of the following are true: (i) (e) is true, (ii) Smith believes that (e) is true, and (iii) Smith is justified in believing that (e) is true. But it is equally clear that Smith does not know that (e) is true; for (e) is true in virtue of the number of coins in Smith's pocket, while Smith does not know how many coins are in Smith's pocket, and bases his belief in (e) on a count of the coins in Jones's pocket, whom he falsely believes to be the man who will get the job.

Checkmate, Greeks.

>>9486412
What kind of mental gymnactics is this?

This shit sounds like a fraiser episode.

True knowledge is knowledge that provides the best results for practice.
EMBRACE IT, YOU'RE QUIXOTE.

>>9486423

It's an example of a justified true belief without knowledge, proving they are not the same thing.

>>9483118
>>9483121
>>9483136
>>9484290
define truth