Overview of Epistemology (part 1)

Part 1 of 2, Overview of Epistemology in Academic Philosophy. This is an overview of unit 2 in Philosophy 101 (Introduction to Western Philosophy). In this video we briefly look at the three basic questions in Epistemology: 1) What is knowledge?, 2) Can we have knowledge?, and 3) How do we get knowledge.

[sisyphus]

I just discovered this channel. Can't wait to binge watch your videos!

[jerYacoub]

I appreciate the basic and clear lesson. If someone like me can walk away understanding what you're saying then you've aced it. Cheers!

[juliusorelus]

Technology makes it all occurs. Thank you so much for this amazing explanation. ❤

[jacquelinewolf-xwcs]

I love these videos. Thank you. Your ability to see relationships is amazing.

[samuelrech]

Hello! Love your videos and working my way through. Quick question if I may - where is the video on Plato's apology you briefly refer to in the beginning? I went through the videos on Socrates' historical backdrop, but was then led to here - not sure if I'm missing something? Thank you for posting these.

[aspen]

Thank you for your great videos! Can you make a brief overview of Postmodernism😊🥺I think it would be great. Anyway Thanks for your effort!

[notsure]

Question: is the triangle not itself understood through sensory experiences. e.g. you are taught what a triangle is, you learn its features and are able to identify it. Being born and having no idea about geometry you would not be able to identify it as a triangle let alone a shape . How does is then become an innate belief? thank you ;)

[havenbastion]

Knowledge is justified belief. Faith is Unjustified belief. Opinion is just belief.

[mohdhussain]

Can we expect detailed lecture on hermeneutics. bless

[havenbastion]

It's not possible to believe something you don't think is justified. "I know x but i don't believe it." really means "I know other people believe x but I don't." The point when you believe a piece of information is justified is the point when you start to believe it is true, whether or not it's compatible with the logic or data available now or in the future.

Cognitive dissonance is ignorance where knowledge is appropriate, not understanding the conflict between your beliefs sufficiently to settle the disjunction.

[havenbastion]

Those divisions are somewhat arbitrary. Axiology, aesthetics, ethics, and politics are all contingent.

Metaphysics and epistemology are distinctive but inseparable and ought to be combined.

Logic is a sub-set of science (rigor) that always replicates and is closer to math than philosophy. And history of philosophy is just history - academic.

These are my divisions, which seen to be more intentionally distributed;
a) Truth Wisdom - epistemology, metaphysics, philosophy of language, philosophy of science, mereology...
b) Practical Wisdom - what ordinary people think philosophy is; what we want and how to get it; aesthetics, ethics, politics, etc.
c) Academic Philosophy - people, history, jargon.

[havenbastion]

You lost me at JTB. The truth of a proposition is what knowledge is a pointer Toward, and cannot even be known with the ultimate certainty that "true" implies. Justified true belief could never be recognized as true or not true, because the final settled truth of it will never actually be available to anyone. The recognition of truth is always relative to the best information available Now, and it's also always limited to the actual minds in the scenario; what is it even possible for them to know?.

[joshuafritz]

The materialistic bias presented is not consistent with metaphysics. Trueness is independent of the material world. The first error made, is that a theory of knowledge is presented. Knowledge is not a theory. That is what distinguishes it from opinion. Knowledge is a pre exisiting Energy. This is a D minus.