Theory of Knowledge

Theory of Knowledge

In the dialogue of Thaeteus written by Plato, Thaeteus argues that Knowledge = Justified True Belief. It is almost universally accepted that K=JTB is the best definition of knowledge, however this theory does not exist without its detractors. We can never say that Knowledge is Justified True Belief due to various issues that arise when this theory is put forward. Therefore the theories on how Knowledge = Justified True Belief will be explained and compared in an attempt to show why we can never say ‘I know that P’.

Belief is considered a key factor in the traditional description of knowledge. A belief is something that exists without sufficient proof or facts. We must believe something for it to become knowledge. So a belief can be false or true, but it must be true to become knowledge. Knowledge is assumed to be infallible as justification implies that it cannot be wrong, yet many epistemologists have argued that the infallibility of knowledge is arguable. We can say that a proposition is justified on the foundation of facts, yet the problem of induction shows that knowledge can be fallible as perception is used to validate this. This raises the point of the infinite regress of reasons where one proposition has to be justified by another. Therefore if we factor in the theory of infinite regress, our propositions will eventually become self-referring or lead us to a contradiction without justifying the proposition. Foundationalism attempts to defeat the argument of infinite regress by saying that there are some beliefs where it is unsuitable to ask for justification which are called ‘basic beliefs’. So the idea of basic beliefs allows us to say that the chain that is the supporting reasons for a belief cannot go back forever, rather it is terminated.
    Descartes said that we are all born with innate ideas “We come to know them by the power of our own native intelligence, without any sensory experience. Hence, according to Plato,...