Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

One good definition of knowledge is anything that is strong and useful. Aquinas is not only strong, but also useful. Therefore Aquinas had a lot of knowledge.

One good definition of knowledge is anything that is strong and useful. Hammers are not only strong, but also useful. Therefore hammers have a lot of knowledge.

Beasts of burden, like ox, are also strong and useful and, so, also serve as counterexamples. But perhaps I'm being a pedant.

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

Knowledge is propositions that are strong and have a lot of utility. True is not necessary, because a lot of things that are not true are knowledge. E.g. you believe your Aunt Tilly is alive and before you get any news update she dies of a fever. Your belief that she is alive isn't true anymore, but it's still knowledge.

You believe she's alive. Belief isn't knowledge. (You might say: "Okay, so I know she's alive until I get the news." But you don't, because there comes a point where your knowledge ceases to be knowledge and becomes a false (albeit justified) belief.)

I'm not entirely sure what it means for a proposition to be "useful" or "strong". The former sounds like it's talking about the usefulness of believing in the proposition. (I had a jokey paragraph about how it might be extremely useful for me to believe that Jeremy's head is a poached egg written out.) The latter sounds like it might be a category mistake.

ficino wrote:

Due_Kindheartedness wrote:

Knowledge is propositions that are strong and have a lot of utility. True is not necessary, because a lot of things that are not true are knowledge. E.g. you believe your Aunt Tilly is alive and before you get any news update she dies of a fever. Your belief that she is alive isn't true anymore, but it's still knowledge.

No, it is not knowledge. You are not entitled to make up your own definitions unless you are willing to stand outside the community of discourse.
 

What if I believe my definitions are better than the consensus? And besides, philosophers cope with other philosophers coming up with different definitions. They just argue or refute the idea on their terms. And philosophy was founded by a gladfly and non-comformist after all

And truth might be implicit in strong. Look at music theory, which is a body of knowledge (because that is the definition of a theory: a body of knowledge is knowledge but it doesn't involve describing reality in some way. But claims in music theory are strong (they characterize what sounds good near-completely) and has a lot of utility (you can use it to make video game music, symphonies, or just enjoy music you like more).

Last edited by Due_Kindheartedness (12/22/2018 10:53 pm)

John West wrote:

There are also very likely useless things I know (quite a lot of them, I imagine). For instance, suppose I were to go out and count the number of blades of grass on my lawn. I would then know the number of blades of grass on my lawn. But the number of blades of grass on my lawn isn't useful.

FUCK! But why does it seem as if utility is something integral to knowledge? You're aware of Norzick's utility theory of truth, right?

Last edited by Due_Kindheartedness (12/23/2018 12:09 am)

BACK ON SUBJECT...  I would still like to know what communists  you were referring to and who you consider funded them.  You know.  So I have something to read about.  That is what you wanted us to do right? Read up on the subject. Im still waiting on the subject.