An overview of the whole analysis/definitions of knowledge debate in philosophy and epistemology that goes beyond Plato's justified true belief definition and Gettier problems to look at some potential responses and post-Gettier definitions of knowledge including no false lemmas, infallibilism, virtue epistemology, and reliabilism. It is an EXCITING roller coaster ride that involves fake barns, evil demons, and two job applicants who BOTH have 10 coins in their pockets!

To me the interesting thing about this topic is not the definitions themselves but the way it illustrates how conceptual analysis in philosophy works, including the idea of necessary and sufficient conditions and how we can attack philosophical definitions/theories with counter-examples and thought experiments.

These videos are based around the AQA A-level philosophy syllabus.

00:00 Intro
01:32 Necessary and sufficient conditions
03:15 Different types of knowledge (ability, acquaintance, propositional)
04:19 Definition 1: Justified true belief (the tripartite definition)
06:51 Gettier problems/Gettier cases
09:35 Definition 2: Justified true belief + no false lemmas
12:49 Definition 3: Infallibilism
16:49 Definition 4: Virtue epistemology
21:22 Definition 5: Reliabilism
25:31 Summary: Definitions of knowledge and conceptual analysis
27:40 Outro and book recommendations

References/further reading:
- My website: [ Ссылка ]
- Stanford's summary (a good resource): [ Ссылка ]
- My book: [ Ссылка ]
- Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology by Jonathan Dancy
- Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? by Edmund Gettier: [ Ссылка ]
- Theaetetus by Plato. Full text here: [ Ссылка ]
- Meditations on First Philosophy by Rene Descartes. Full text here: [ Ссылка ]
- Discrimination and Perceptual Knowledge by Alvin Goldman (this is where the Fake Barn County counterexample comes from): [ Ссылка ]

#philosophy #epistemology #alevelphilosophy

свернуть