“Immediately Justified Beliefs”

Is there such thing as an “immediately justified belief?” Use an example to explain how this works.

There is such a thing as a “immediately justified belief” or also known as a “noninferentially justified belief” and is more commonly known as a justified basic belief.  These justified basic beliefs have a certain degree of justification that does not need the support that is given by other beliefs, like nonbasic beliefs. In short, there is no need to argue propositions for people to accept these beliefs because they are already justified for us. There are two types of justified basic beliefs: “one of beliefs about simple logical or mathematical truths and beliefs about our own mental states.(Lemos 45)

One example of a simple logical or mathematical truth is the image of blue, round ball. If all balls are balls and if something is blue and round are, we do not need justification to believe that it is a ball or round. Our justification is not based on believing some other proposition. Furthermore this does not come from an inference from some proposition. “One simply considers them and ‘sees’ intellectually that they are true.” (Lemos 46)

Another example is our beliefs on mental attitudes in which they also seem amply justified. My beliefs about whether am I content, nervous, or sad is justified enough for me. These beliefs are not based on an inference. My sensations and perceptions can also not based on inferences and are justified to me too. For example, my belief that I am in pain caused by wound on my left forearm is not based on some other belief of mine and does not need further beliefs to prove justification. (Lemos 46)

 

 

 

                                                                                            Bibliography

Lemos, Noah Marcelino. An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.

Expert Project Thesis

The critical reasoning skills of a trained philosopher is a form of expertise because the gained education leads to a more keen intuitive thinker on the subject matter. Experience is the other form that can lead to a better intuitive thinker and closely and often intertwines with education, or in this sense, some form of training to become a more efficient expert. This is assuming that being an expert does not have to know that all knowledge is truth-bearing, but should come from the  and  most up to date empiricle studies and information regarding that certain field of study.

Surgically Implanted Devices and Martian Landscapes: How Reliabilism is Limited Due to the Problem of Unknown Reliability

In essence, I do not know of these propositions of the Martian landscapes because there is a lack of evidence and found reasoning that is needed in legitimate justification and further in that of knowledge. While it might be true that my beliefs are reliable because of the surgically implanted device, it does not give proper justification that is needed as I am not aware of the cerebral device.  This in turn, causes controversy on whether or not it is knowledge, i.e. a justified true belief, as some people would still find this a sound piece of knowledge. Furthermore, this also causes a significant problem to reliabilism as justification for knowledge.  There is no evidence for or against my belief and no belief that my beliefs are reliably produced. This, thus, means that my belief is not epistemically justified according to a justified true belief philosophers. While being reliable does help create solidity in justification for beliefs, it cannot be the sole notion to confirm that my beliefs are instances of knowledge since it is not properly justified. These beliefs of the Martian landscape are just examples of animal knowledge, that while it is apt, it is lacking the coherence justification that is included in reflective knowledge. In these instances, reflective knowledge includes a certain degree of justification because of it incorporates proposition that are both aft and coherence.

            Consider the following example of instance in while high reliability with no justification does not mean knowledge. Think of a girl who claims he owns a kitten which is reliably produced. While this may be reliable, this kid, Jackie, ignores the defeating evidence that this belief was produced after she had received major head trauma, so her new memories have been flawed. This loses all credibility and thus makes this account unjustified because of the proper use of evidence, the fact that she received head trauma, is not being put into consideration. If this information was used and brought to her attention, Jackie would not have formulated such a belief in the first place. Jackie would have been justified if she said that her father was there when she had purchased the kitten, signed paperwork claiming legal ownership of the kitten, performed acts of tender loving care that would seem strange if it were not her kitten, gives it plenty of food and water daily, and pays for veterinarian costs and medicines. This makes the proposition more reliably produced, has ample justification on the basis of coherent facts, and has a belief for this as knowledge which leads to be a considered an example of knowledge. 

In conclusion, we must think about what is within the context of the given scenario to understand what knowledge is. In regard to my reliable beliefs about the Martian landscapes, I still do not know anything about my belief making function and therefore cannot be completely sure that I know my beliefs are true. This leaves out the valuable justification information to conclude that these beliefs are instances of knowledge.

Love and Equality

Everyone should love whoever they want. There should never be any stigma of who you love because that helps make who you are. Be your unique self. No religious doctrine should say something like that is immoral as how is it immoral to love the person you cherish and would not want to miss another day with? Live like tomorrow is the last and if I was to die tomorrow, I would be disappointed at the struggles that continue to happen over the inability to love one another. A marriage is a human invention and should include whoever you love and want to spend every day with…whether that being watching a movie together, drinking coffee and reading the newspaper together on a rainy Sunday morning, or even raising adopted kids who now have a better life with many more opportunities than continue to live in an adoption center. How could humanity be so selfish as to think that these things are insignificant and repulsive to society when clearly they are not? This makes me full of anguish for such insolent behavior still lingers in a in a country that was founded on liberties in which “all men are created equal… and that among these [rights that are endowed by them] are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Is this a country of false promises? Or is something that needs to put in the forefront of everyone’s mind to realize that not being able to love one legally compromises the legitimacy of our written documents from our forefathers? I love this country, but there will couples that will continue to do whatever it takes to make ends meet under nothing but hope that a brighter future will happen sooner than later.

 

Defeasibility Theory: A Limit to Our Knowledge

If the Defeasibility theory is correct, is the scope of our knowledge (the extent of what we could rightfully claim to know) likely to be greater or lesser than what we normally assume?

       Our scope of knowledge is likely to be less than what we normally assume at the current its current state. That being understood, we must understand what the Defeasibility Theory is to believe that this capacity of knowledge is limited. According to many JTB philosophers, knowledge needs to satisfy all of the following. A proposition, p, needs to be true, that p is also believed to be true, and that p is epistemically justified. The Defeasibility Theory is just one approach in figuring out what knowledge is not. When you add a true proposition, q, that defeats the initial proposition, p, this in turn, defeats the justification to believe that the initial proposition, p, does suffice in knowing that initial proposition, p, is evidence for l.[1] While this may seem ambiguous and daunting at first, it is simply stating that by adding a new fact one can invalidate out a proposition that led you to the evidence in the first place. This, thus, does not mean we know it. What is important to include is “that one knows that p only if there is no true proposition which would defeat one’s justification for believing that p.” [2] Knowledge is constantly changing and so it is best understood with the most up to date evidence and relevant information we have. With the current facts we have now, we facilitate in creating knowledge utilizing the truths of what we know to the best of our ability. However, there are certain things that we just do not know now and we do the best we can with the a priori knowledge that we have to settle these inquiring questions about life. The knowledge that the earth was flat was commonly thought for many years until it was proved, that it is truly spherical in nature. With regard to the Gettier problem, what we can distinguish through the Defeasibility Theory is that there are certainly cases of which that are not instances of knowledge.

 Suppose that you know that Sam has a thousand dollars tucked away under his mattress in his bedroom. You are certain of this because he has told you, you have seen the bills neatly stacked under the bed, and you have even felt it even if it was only for a few brief seconds. While perception does not necessarily entitle knowledge, this facilitates in your belief that Sam has the ten thousand dollars and you are justified because you have seen it. Sam has told you that he has the money and you have felt the crisp dollars bills in the palms of your hands. However, unbeknownst to you, Sam was deceitful in telling you that all of the cash, that is so neatly stacked under his bed, is for some odd reason his younger sister’s college tuition savings. While this might appear abstract, it is paradigm of the Defeasibility Theory, because this new proposition is a factual defeater for our evidence to believe that it is Sam’s money. This defeats our justified true belief that Sam has ten thousand dollars under his bed.

Imagine you did not receive this information would this be knowledge? You are still justified that he has the money; you continue to believe it, and continue to find it true. So, this is still considered knowledge since you do not have further evidence opposing the current proposition. Furthermore, you would never know the cash was not his if you were never given this information. However as soon, as you find out that it is for his sister’s college, this defeats the conclusion that the money is his and is not knowledge. Moreover and again, Knowledge, like science, is constantly and forever altering. There might be alien life forms in the Andromeda galaxy, but for as far as we know in this current frame of time; we do not have the evidence to prove that. What if it was within our scientific textbooks and journals that this was true, only to figure out later that it was all lies from astronauts? Then that completely changes our concept for knowledge on that particular area at this current point of time and changes to fulfill the requirements of a justified true belief.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                            Work Cited

            Lemos, Noah Marcelino. An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

---

[1]Lemos, Noah Marcelino. An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

[2]  Ibid.

Meandering through Montreal: Reaffirming America’s Cultural Dominance

Meandering through Montreal: Reaffirming America’s Cultural Dominance

           Just walking down on St. Catherine’s street in Montreal, an American can be dazzled by the eye candy on display. Marquees of flashing lights are all strewn across buildings to market the fine aroma inducing restaurants, the pictures of seductive woman in scantily clad clothing that speak of strip clubs that are open late into the night, the famed and classy fashion designer outlet shops that can make even the most monotonous man seem the subject of sophistication; these are scenes on this marvelous street in Montreal.  People from all over the world go here for the chic, young atmosphere that is emanating from street corner to street corner. Through my experiences in Montreal, Canada, I am reaffirmed and more convinced than ever that it is not foreign cultures that influence America, for it is American culture that influences foreign cultures.  Through similarities in norms and beliefs that have facilitated to define American culture for better or worse, we can see these well established notions in not just Canada, but in plenty of other countries as well.

            What makes this place any more fascinating than the rest of the city? To me in my opinion, it is because of the American culture that can be seen throughout the street. Men and women, from my left and right, converse about the latest music single that has been released from pop singer Katy Perry. The convenient Starbucks is swamped with not just tourists but of the locals as well. Not to mention, there are deliberations of President Barack Obama’s decisions and how the “Alaskan lady,” otherwise known as Sarah Palin, is a “wacko.”  Ford and Chevrolet cars all are constantly driving by to go about their business. Furthermore, when I saw “Robin Hood” in theatres last year, greatly to my surprise, was that even in Montreal, Quebec was the movie in English and did not even include French subtitles. Canadians are friendly people that have an ostensible curiosity of their southern neighbor.

            Now stop and take a second to think about these American manifestations here in Canada. The Vegas-style neon marquee that flashes on the side of a building is an American influence, but to an even further degree, it was our very own Thomas Edison who invented the incandescent light bulb. Another example is the style of music being played at the hottest dance clubs in the city. While there are those that play French music, some of the most desirable clubs, like Club 747, come from those that play thudding pop American songs with low-frequency bass syncopated rhythms. Additionally, one cannot help but notice that in this crowd what brands of clothes people wear. Ralph Lauren, Guess, American Eagle, Gap, and Nike are just as widespread here in this dim-lighted, deafening discotheque as they are outside being worn by the Canadians during a mid-summer’s afternoon. As I stroll down this cosmopolitan street, I also hear a zealous and extraordinarily talented saxophonist who is playing jazz music hoping to delight charitable onlookers. It is jazz, a genre that emphasizes improvisation in its style of music, which was started in the United States.

These American manifestations can also be equally apparent in other countries around the world too. While it is true that its proximity may have somewhat more on an emphasis of American culture, one cannot nullify the stunning American paradigms that exist in other countries as well. This includes, but is not limited to: Apple stores in London, McDonald’s Restaurants in Cairo, Disney themed merchandise and amusement parks in China and France, and Coca-Cola products in the Bahamas. People from all over the world want to associate themselves with what America is doing and what they have to offer. Americans have been particularly successful in business ventures and have been able to capitalize on these industries, like fashion and entertainment, not just on a domestic scale but also to the many other countries. The exclusiveness of wearing that Fossil watch in Managua brings a certain amount of pride that a less expensive watch would not be able to give. The same thing is true for the graduate student living in Budapest, Hungary who owns an iPad to do his term paper as opposed to going to the library to use those computers for the assignment. Additionally, the governmental resolutions that come out of this United States have had profound effects economically, politically, and socially all over the globe as well.

 American culture has never had inhibitions limiting how Americans express themselves. We are truly the king of pop culture in the world and there has been limited records stating otherwise. Until we see another type of Hollywood, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, New England Clam Chowder, Mark Twain, Disney World Resort, Oprah, Ralph Lauren, Madonna, Music Television (MTV), National Basketball Association (NBA), Texas style barbecue, Bill and Melinda Gates, Willis Tower, New York Yankees, Abe Lincoln, Hooters, Lady Gaga, Statue of Liberty, Stephen Spielberg, and many more that matches and rivals our own, should we commence to believe that our influence on other cities and countries, including Montreal, Canada, is beginning to fade into oblivion.

The Future of Art in America

“Alright Christina, now what do you want to be when you grow up?”

“A petroleum engineer, mama!”

“Why, that is exactly right. You are definitely going to get the big bucks that way sweetheart. You know what is also true dear?”

“No, what?” Christina insisted.

“Only the handsome boys will go for the girls who pursue the sciences?”

“Oh, well I did not know that mama.”

“Oh, yeah. That is most certainly true.”

            Another household just down the street…

“Evan, I am canceling your 3D visual design class next year. Colleges do not want to see that crap. They would much rather want to see that pre-environmental engineering course. Oh that definitely sounds a lot better.”

“Mom, that sucks.” Evan sighs. “Do I have to do that?” droning out in a melancholy voice.

“Yes, and let’s be honest, you were never really that good at art anyways…”

            Is this what America has turned itself into? How does a simple seven year old girl completely sure that she aspires to be a petroleum engineer when she grows up? While statements like this would seen out of line to some people, that is not the case for many. There has been a continuing stigma for some who think that people who study the arts have an extremely limited chance in making it large within the job sector. Overbearing parents, media outlets, and even politics today have had a wary and despicable effect on children today who would prefer the humanities than to math, science, and technology. To study art, whether it is in writing, drawing painting, playing a musical instrument, or theatre, generates creativity that can be transcended to many different fields of study. 

What gives a parent the right to make such appalling claims to any individual who has the aspirations and will to say otherwise? I believe that is through experience in which a person can become an adept and it is more about the process of how someone gets there. While there are stories of a child prodigy being naturally talented since he first laid he fingers on the black and white keys of a baby grand piano at age 4. However, to also keep the records straight, these are particularly uncommon circumstances. Most people need to work through tribulations and learn from these mistakes to become better at their skills; the same process applies to learners of the arts. Ultimately in time, it is the person who is willing to give the most effort to achieve is granted with the most success.         

Success is not measured by how someone has made in money from their endeavors. Success is measured through happiness, and if you enjoy what you are doing in life at its current state, what more could you want? I cannot imagine if I was to pursue a career in aeronautical engineering because I would not be content as to what I was doing. Thus, my effort would consistently go down along with my results and evidence of my work. Now that being said, there very well might people who would love going to work every day as an aeronautical engineer. However, it is when a person who would rather go to an art institute or conservatory gets shut down and told that only foolish people would continue along this path, do I become distraught about the future. American society currently has this omniscient view that people within these disciplines are going to be fail and that society is very unforgiving of those who take this road. Eventually, the artist will be fruitless of any further work.  This is quite a dangerous philosophy and makes me only think about what devastating effects this will have for American culture soon enough. If a person was to do what they love in the job world, people would be a lot less stressful about life in our world as much of deals with one’s job.  We should all realize that we are, are own man. We control the destiny we set forth upon embarking on a journey that no one can steer into a different direction.

Living or Not in a Virtual Reality

The ultimate virtual reality machine would present a world so vivid that we couldn’t tell that it was merely a simulation. Can you know that you’re not plugged into an ultimate virtual reality machine right now? If not, what difference does it make?
To know that we are in an ultimate virtual reality machine would require concept of knowledge with appropriate epistemic justification. Knowledge, from many philosophers, requires that it be justified, true, and have beliefs for it. With the current knowledge we have so far, it would be impossible to know whether or not you are plugged in this virtual reality simulation machine.
How philosophers answer truth, whether it be true or false, is based on the work of theories. These theories, however, all include shortcomings of their own over the legitimacy and validity of truth (Lemos 10-12). So while these theories may facilitate knowledge based on your idea of truth, it is not a guarantee. So if truth is theoretical, is it likely to know that anything is knowledge? The answer is yes, because knowledge does not always need truth as a requisite. However, for something like this situation of whether or not we are plugged in to this ultimate virtual simulation, it would seem appropriate for this information. Moreover, in beliefs; if you were to believe that you were not in the simulation, even when the amount of justification and truth clearly point otherwise, you believe that the virtual simulation is in fact reality. Like truth, a belief accepting you were not in game as true would also be needed.
For epistemic justification, an utmost amount is needed to solve this quandary. One can say that in a virtual reality game that we are either in the game or we are not. While this is true, it does not give us the proper justification that is needed to know whether or not we are in it (Lemos 14). Additionally, we could very well be in that simulation game right now, but due to our current state which lacks sufficient evidence, it is not something enough to be justified (Lemos 15). “With respect to these propositions we might say that one is not just justified in believing them. Instead, one is justified in withholding belief in them” (Lemos 14). Another important idea in knowledge, and again, to justification, is to know that a proposition can be justified but not true (Lemos 14). If you were to see a rock fall to the ground and know that it is the physics concept of gravity being put into motion, you would know this through your current understanding of gravity; if and only if, you have learned it. However, unbeknownst to you, what might be true is that there is no concept of gravity at all, but in fact it is the adept work of a video game programmer who simply coded in this function with the use of his computer. Not knowing information like this can lead to false knowledge which only leads to further vulnerability on knowing whether or not we are in the virtual reality simulation machine.
So, let us say that we would not be able to ever figure out whether or not we are in a video game simulation. What difference would it make to our world? Well it would not get us conclusive evidence, but get only nonconclusive evidence in our knowledge (Lemos 18). It would mean that with the current situation it would not “guarantee the truth of the proposition it supports” (Lemos 18). We would never be able to be completely true, but we could be almost 99.9% sure that it is true. On the contrary, it does make us reflect on fundamental questions; what is thinking? Are our thoughts computer operated? What about memories? What would a video game programmer get out of this virtual reality simulation? This, in turn, gives us the ability to go forth and argue for our beliefs with sound evidence on how these are answered.
To understand whether or not we are truly in a virtual reality simulation would be an endless struggle because, in this point of time, you could not particularly know. The idea of being justified in believing in something depends on the total evidence being provided and now it is insufficient to prove that we are out of this video game. This is true for now at least with the limited evidence we know and could very well change with more information in the future.
Bibliography
Lemos, Noah Marcelino. An Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge UP, 2007. Print.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.

Here are some suggestions for your first post.

1. You can find new ideas for what to blog about by reading the Daily Post.
2. Add PressThis to your browser. It creates a new blog post for you about any interesting  page you read on the web.
3. Make some changes to this page, and then hit preview on the right. You can always preview any post or edit it before you share it to the world.