What is knowledge?

[Grey Owl]

One of the first texts I read that got me interested in philosophy was the Theaetetus by Plato and it posed this very question. It is a question which seems so simple on the face of it and yet the most obvious explanations quickly become mired in paradoxes. Even though I was quiet young when I first read the text and have heard countless explanations since; I am still perplexed and as ever intrigued. I'd really love to hear others views on this.

[taltho]

Hi Grey Owl. Knowledge cannot be specifically defined. So I might say that i have the knowledge/information that knowledge is a philosophical unknown.

[Serkat]

The sum of beliefs that one considers to be accurate representations of objective states. (throwin' this one in for debate, feel free to criticize)

[Grey Owl]

Knowledge cannot be specifically defined. So I might say that i have the knowledge/information that knowledge is a philosophical unknown. I like what you say here in fact it reminds me of something wittgenstein argued. I can't remember it exactly but loosely paraphrased, 'there need be no element common to all instances of a property other than they are instances'. However I do feel much can be gained in exploring knowledge and that one need not define it in a single instance. The sum of beliefs that one considers to be accurate representations of objective states. Korrittke your idea is interesting, but it appears to have a built in scepticism as a belief is not as substantial as others might deem knowledge. I wonder do you consider there to be an objective world beyond our senses or do you think that human experience is 'the measure of all things'.

[Minervas Phoenix]

Hello Grey Owl. I wouldn't attribute knowledge to A thing. What I mean is the english language you see has no definitions for esoteric mechanisms of nature. You can only say things like 'I was typing on the computer'. You cannot say 'I was knowledge on my computer'. This is how the esoteric mechanism escapes your attention to such a degree we now want to know what it is. However when you think about the existence of these kinds of esoteric mechanisms working in nature it then becomes obvious what relationship knowledge would have in the physical world we live in. For example when defining the meaning of something like knowledge that is so scale Dependant. I would only attribute it to the context of certain action and the determining scale of it's success reveals the nature of it self evidently.

[taltho]

Hello Grey Owl. I wouldn't attribute knowledge to A thing. What I mean is the english language you see has no definitions for esoteric mechanisms of nature. You can only say things like 'I was typing on the computer'. You cannot say 'I was knowledge on my computer'. This is how the esoteric mechanism escapes your attention to such a degree we now want to know what it is. However when you think about the existence of these kinds of esoteric mechanisms working in nature it then becomes obvious what relationship knowledge would have in the physical world we live in. For example when defining the meaning of something like knowledge that is so scale Dependant. I would only attribute it to the context of certain action and the determining scale of it's success reveals the nature of it self evidently. Knowledge cannot be specifically defined. (Mostly this part), Minervas Phoenix your very intelligent have you researched this subject? knowledge is information, I could say I know how to type so there for I have information on how typing is done, but if in fact I did not know how to type then I would have no knowledge on typing, but the information still exists. Hence my latter statement... So I might say that I have the knowledge/information that knowledge is a philosophical unknown. I wish I had more time to get into this but I don't... Good subject Gray Owl

[Original Poster]

I like what you say here in fact it reminds me of something wittgenstein argued. I can't remember it exactly but loosely paraphrased, 'there need be no element common to all instances of a property other than they are instances'. However I do feel much can be gained in exploring knowledge and that one need not define it in a single instance. Knowledge is information, but you cannot use knowledge to judge any particular instance before you have fully understood it as its own instance, rather than just a combination of past experiences you have brought up. Everything must be viewed with respect and awe because everything is another unique part of existence and though you can use knowledge to make better use out of every instance, it still contains infinite possibility.

[ChaybaChayba]

Interesting question, I would define knowledge as following. Knowledge is the sum of all your experiences. The more experience you have in a certain field, the more knowledge you will have in that field. You can share your knowledge through language and books, but true knowledge can only be obtained through personal experience imo. Before you can understand the words and the concepts in the books you already need to have experienced them. Without experience, no knowledge.

[Cyclic13]

Well it doesn't just stop at 'knowledge'... Every word's definition is mired in paradoxes as it tries to imply objective meaning onto subjective beings... Take a word as simple as 'Good'... What does that mean, exactly? Yes, I know it means, "having the desired qualities of", but honestly that just uses more meaningless symbols and words to make the original idea even more complicated in order to objectively explain something so subjectively inexplicable. Nothing anyone can say would ever answer the question... What does it mean? What is 'good' for you, is 'bad' for me... what is 'knowledge' for one is 'unimportant' for the other... Honestly, words are disparate and desperate attempts of being understood... Experience or meaning cannot be passed on, no matter how well written or concisely worded. It can only be recognized or unrecognized by those with or without that experience. Words only add clutter to an intent or idea that can only be directly experienced by quieting your surroundings and withdrawing into one's self. Once you take out all distractions long enough, you will know... not just understand. And, if one feels compelled to disagree, they simply don't know yet.

[Carôusoul]

The tripartite definition is "True, Justified, belief" There are counter examples and problems with this definition, and it is by no means infallible [see 'Gettier'] ; But it is the definition I tend to work with.