johnfitzgeralddesign

In a philosophy class last night, I was reminded of why I enjoy philosophy so much. In 1963, an American philosopher called Edmund Gettier wrote a three-page paper that upset thousands of years worth of consensus on the definition of knowledge.

I was amazed at the thought of such a short piece of thought having such a big impact, but also the simplicity of the form of his ‘counter-examples’. So simple, in fact, that I can give one in this blog post!

The historic definition of knowledge had three parts. To say you have ‘knowledge’ of something, you need:

• Truth (the thing you claim to know must be true)
• Justification (you must have reasonable grounds for your claim to knowledge)
• Belief (you must genuinely believe something to say you ‘know’ it)

This would seem a fairly comprehensive definition of knowledge, but Gettier found a gaping hole in it. Take the following example:

You are walking through London, at two minutes to noon. You’re not wearing a watch, and so look at Big Ben to check the time. It shows the time as 11.58. So, you have justification for believing something which is also true. But is your claim to know the time watertight?

Imagine the following condition applies to the scenario:

Unknown to you (and those around you), Big Ben stopped working at 11.58pm the night before. In this case, your ‘knowledge’ about the time is mere coincidence. Does it still seem right to claim that you ‘know’ the correct time?

(This ‘counter-example’ is not one that Gettier used in his paper, but it has exactly the same form. You can probably think of other ‘counter-examples’ pretty easily)

Philosophers have responded to Gettier in a number of ways. One approach is to add an extra condition to the definition of knowledge- that the match between the way the world is and your knowledge is non-accidental. Other philosophers have argued for a narrower definition of justification, which would exclude Gettier’s counter-examples. However, there doesn’t seem to be a neat answer to Gettier’s challenge yet (see this Princeton lecture).

I’m considering switching courses at Birkbeck, from combined Politics, Philosophy and History to straight Philosophy.

One major reason is that I find Philosophy a lot easier (and did better in the exam). Also, I like the fact that Philosophy tends to consist of shorter readings, where you really get your teeth into the writer’s argument.

When I told someone how I felt about a recent exam (I enjoyed it), they said I was ’sick’. Am I really that odd? Because I enjoy my courses a lot, I’ve been relishing the chance to put my knowledge into practice and finally sit the exams. Perhaps it’s just the novelty of first year? Maybe I’ll have a tough exam next Tuesday, and eat my words.

A slightly retrospective post, this. I revised for my first exam in the British Library. In theory, as an undergrad with access to the Birkbeck library, I shouldn’t really be in the British Library. However, they seem flexible on this, and the BL is much better than Birkbeck. For example, they have every book published in the UK, which beats competing with all my classmates for a few key texts. The books are closed access, though, so you have to order them in advance.

The BL also has an incredibly studious atmosphere- no pens or bags in the reading room, spacious and comfortable desks, each with their own little lamp. When I go there, I shift easily into ’study mode’. I find it much harder to do that at Birkbeck- my distractible nature means I’m always breaking my concentration.

Does Mill’s liberty principle provide a satisfactory criterion by which to judge whether interference in another person’s actions is justifiable?

Introduction

Be clear- I agree!

Mill’s principle is not absolute

The appeal to liberty as default condition is strongly intuitive

The ‘harm’ qualification is useful and clear

But!

Problems posed by utilitarianism (not compatible with ‘rights’)
How to (and who) discerns ‘good’

Examples of where utilitarianism is useful (and where it isn’t)

Conclusion

Why according to Rousseau are dissentient individuals obliged to obey the general will under the conditions of the Social Contract?

Introduction

What is the general will?

Background- what is Rousseau trying to do?

How is it discerned (problems with this process?)

What is the social contract?

Contrast with other kinds of ‘contract’

NB not the same as ‘accepting’ benign authority

Why R. states that all must obey general will

Examples (murder)

Consequences of not obeying

Problems this leads to

Conclusion

In a comment piece in the Daily Telegraph, AC Grayling* says that the reason he has a problem with faith is because:

“…faiths are mutually exclusive and indeed mutually blaspheming, and that the
history of their relationship is one of bloodshed…”

I think Grayling’s blanket condemnation is wide of the mark. Quakers (myself included) have certainly never advocated bloodshed towards anyone, and indeed are highly unlikely to accuse other faiths of ‘blaspheming’. In fact, Advices & Queries 6 and 7 are pretty clear on the benefits of learning from other faiths. (See here for background to Quaker Advices & Queries).

The problem is that the ‘faith’ which makes it into the media these days is ‘faith’ which impels people towards extreme views, and, even worse, extreme actions. Faith which doesn’t intrude on others probably falls into the category of ‘mostly harmless’ and so of no interest to the public. I’d rather be harmless than sensational though.

*Interestingly, AC Grayling is a Professor at Birkbeck. His philosophy lectures are really good.

We keep hearing how our appetite for information has changed. Some say the web has reduced us to consuming it in bite-sized chunks. We read about more but understand less.

Is this really a new development? I read somewhere (link coming soon!) about how 17th century thinkers kept ‘common notebooks’, collecting diverse ideas together. They also skimmed each others’ works, perhaps in the way that you’re skimming this post.

I’ll try to use this blog as a compendium, jotting down ideas and reflections as they come. I’ll try to find links of interest, and hopefully something new to say…

Watch out too for college notes- I don’t know if putting them here will help my studies, but it’s worth a try!