Plato has justified true belief and the gettier problem argumentative essays example

Introduction

The word knowledge can be stated to be a very complex. Its complexity is what has caused many people in the world including the philosophers to try to find the true meaning of knowledge. Some examples of the philosophers that have searched for its meaning are Edmund Gettier and Plato. The first person ever to define the term knowledge it is claimed to be Plato. He described knowledge to be the justified true beliefs. This term has been used by many people in the society and they have believed in its meaning. The reason for stating this is because of how truthful for something to be said to be in the knowledge. The description about knowledge that was explained by Plato has been used for over 2600 years. In the 20th century, that is when a person claimed that the definition of knowledge stated by Plato might have its flows. This person was Edmund Gettier (Lozanski). In order to find the differences and what caused Edmund Gettier to refute Plato’s claim of knowledge it will be better to know what knowledge is according to both philosophers.

Justified true belief by Plato

According to most researches, it has found out that Plato was among the first people to try to define the word knowledge. This definition was stated to be founded in 400BC (Fine). Plato stated that for anyone in the world to have the knowledge then it is important to have the justified true belief. In looking at the Plato’s thoughts about knowledge, it could be best to know the difference between the knowledge and the belief. According to most people opinion cannot be cannot be defined to be the same as that of the knowledge. Belief is however, stated to be almost the same as an opinion. The reason for stating this is that an opinion can be stated to be one person’s viewpoint, which can be described to be the opinion of a person. A good example is when one thinks that the world may revolve around the moon. These facts are merely speculations and not something that can be proved therefore, they cannot be stated to be knowledge but instead will be claimed to be just beliefs. In looking at this explanations then t would be easy to define beliefs and knowledge.
Beliefs in this case are mere assumptions that people have formulated about something’s in the world. These beliefs are something that can be seen in the political arena when the politicians are vying for presidency (Fine). They tend to speculate on what the current presidency is lacking but they never state what is required to change or if the changes they make will benefit the people. There are those who believe that even when the opinion or belief of an individual has been prove to be accurate it does not necessarily mean that , that is a knowledge about that particular thing. The truth condition is something that most people believe in it because of the fact that the unknown cannot be claimed to be false. According to the views of Plato on the difference between knowledge and belief, it is quite easy to see that he believed that there is a possibility for both knowledge and belief to coexist together. This shows how in order for a person to have any belief they surely must be able to have knowledge. This is because when a person has an incentive about something then it is plausible that the thing that a person knows might true.

The justification condition

According to Plato’s views, it is sated that the justification condition is the last component that was used to define what knowledge is in a person (Fine). There must be justification of opinion and if not then what people have in the society are just some true beliefs of things in the society. According to the views of Plato, he believed that the justification could be claimed to be the tether. This analogy was used in order to claim how plausible if it is not tied down by anyone then there is a plausibility of it to run away. He also stated that when the definition of a belief is that it is the state of mind of individuals. He claimed that when this state mind can be easily changed by other opinions that people have about something (Fine). A good example of this justification is when a witness or a victim suddenly remembers that the culprit had worn glasses. This could change the whole picture of the culprit in that the victim will start remembering that there is a possibility the culprit was shorter or taller and maybe even fat. When looking at this it can be stated that the justification of something is the factual rationalization of the beliefs that a person might have about something. Without the justification of the fact that the criminal was short, taller, or even fat then it will only be the beliefs or a guess of the victim about the description of the criminal. When there is a justification then the victim would be able to go and testify without fearing to be wrong about the description about the criminal in front of them in the courtroom.

The Gettier problem

Edmund Gettier is believed to be among the first people disproved Plato’s claim of knowledge. This disproval came in the 20th century during Gettier’s time. He wrote a paper in which he used examples to try to explain the challenges in the justified true beliefs. According to the Plato’s, knowledge it is stated that whenever one has a certain belief that it is justified to have a firm believe that it is true. Gettier used two examples in order to challenge this belief of Plato (Lozanski). This challenge of knowledge was met with mixed reactions because of over two thousand years people have believed in the Plato’s theory of knowledge. In the first example that Gettier produced was the one, which was trying to state how justifying the P, which is true then it will be implying that it is justifiable when one or a person has the false proposition. The example was that of smith and Jones who are both looking for the same job. Jones is stated to have ten coins in his pocket therefore; there is a possibility of him getting the job (Lozanski). According to smith he will believe that the person who has ten coins in his pocket will automatically be the one who gets the job. This shows how smith has the justified true belief that the coins that are in the pocket of Jones are what cause him to get the job. In looking at the example, it shows how Jones will be getting the job but it also shows that Jones has ten coins that are in his pocket. When looking at the next statement, which states that the person who has the ten coins in his pocket, will be the one who will get the job. Smith is seen not to have the knowledge that the person that has the coins will be the one who will get the job.
The second example that was stated by Gettier was the one in which smith has some strong evidence about the propositions about Jones (Lozanski). In the second example, he states that Johns is claimed to have a ford. The other choices are that there is a possibility that Jones owns a ford and Brown is in Boston. Either John has a Ford or maybe Brown is in Barcelona. Either Jones owns a Ford or maybe Brown is in Brest-Litovsk. In all the statements, it is clear that smith in this case no absolute idea where Brown is located. It is justified true belief that Jones has a ford. There is a discrepancy in this statement made by Gettier. The reason for stating this is because there is no absolute way that a person will be able to know that the facts that were made about Smith knowing that Jones has a Ford might be false. This is because of the word that was used in the statement which is the either. Either does not have the real truth or claim that Jones has a car or brown has lied in any of the places mentioned. This is not adequate justification that claims Jones has a ford and where Brown is living. This makes it hard for smith to have the knowledge about the two characters who are Jones and Brown (Lozanski).
In conclusion, in looking at both explanations that were made by Plato and Gettier about knowledge there is a difference. However, in looking at the explanations that were made by Plato it shows how knowledge can be explained. This explanation has made it possible for the people to know what the knowledge is and what the beliefs that people have in the society. According to the explanation, it shows how the difference between true beliefs and knowledge. True beliefs are stated as the assumptions about something in the society. The assumptions are what make it easy for people to think they know something about something (Fine). Many people in the society are known for having their various beliefs about particular things in the society these beliefs however does not necessarily mean that it is knowledge. The justification of a true belief is what makes it plausible for the beliefs to be truthful or become a true knowledge. A fact which can be stated t be a belief sometimes it is just a belief and not a knowledge of something.

Work cited

Fine, Gail. Plato on Knowledge and Forms: Selected Essays. Oxford University Press, 2003. Print
Lozanski, Lukasz. The Gettier Problem No Longer a Problem. Philosophy Now, 2007. Print