To phrase it another way: Gettier wasn't really showing that the formula doesn't work per se. He did the typical philosopher thing: "But what does it mean to be justified? And that's a sticky question indeed. But a wholly different question from the definition of knowledge itself.

There's a few ways to interpret the paper and much subsequent literature on it. But the title is literally Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? He gives examples with coins and a friend in Barcelona, but I think it is correct in saying that JTB is not knowledge, it's not the rock solid definition as was assumed. Though Russell pointed this out in the 1920's, and was mostly ignored. — Manuel

Gettier came up with an interesting challenge to naive interpretations of JTB, but the literal title of his paper still doesn't actually dismantle JTB. You'll need to give more arguments than just "well Russell said it too" I'm afraid.

It's not that we can't speak about knowledge or fallibility, it's just that these words don't have precise meanings. — Manuel

Which you still haven't thoroughly justified.

The beliefs that came prior to modern chemistry. Turning lead into gold, life elixir etc. Now considered mostly pseudoscience, though maybe not all of it. — Manuel

Okay, I thought so. Simple: that which in Alchemy was justified and true belief is knowledge and that which was unjustified and/or untrue was not knowledge.

Is my favorite colour knowledge? Does the itch I feel in my arm knowledge? Is alchemy knowledge? Do I know that a comet won't hit me (or anyone) in the head today? — Manuel

1. It is knowledge that you know what your favorite color is.
2. It is knowledge that you know your arm itches.
3. I'm not sure what you mean by alchemy.
4. I would say, you don't think it's impossible that a comet will hit someone in the head today, you just know the likelihood is so small that you may as well proceed as though it won't.

I'm familiar with Gettier's work. But as far as I understand it, it really challenges more the concept of justification and notions of absolute and absolutely ascertainable truth.

Easy solution: you acknowledge fallibility when asserting knowledge claims. That doesn't mean you don't have strict criteria for "knowledge," but that you may or may not actual know what you think you know.

Mostly the latter, though.

Both.

But knowledge isn't justified true belief, it can't be defined by a strict set of criteria. — Manuel

Why in the world not?

To clarify the analogy, we should make sure we're not comparing the requirements for being a professional philosopher/engineer with being an amateur philosopher/engineer.

There are obviously standards for being a professional engineer that don't apply for trying to be an amateur philosopher

There are specific standards that can be applied and a specific body of knowledge is required — T Clark

I don't see how that's different from philosophy.

I don't really have the time (nor do I think it would probably be very useful or productive) to address all of your concerns in your post.

So to sum it up:
I think you address many concerns I share, especially and primarily the commercialization of education. I share many of your core concerns about the impact and repercussions of capitalist agendas infiltrating education.

I do push back on the notion that this is tied to a) the classroom and b) "power hungry teachers." Obviously and absolutely, such teachers exist. Not denying that at all. But overall the vast majority of teachers are good and I dare say a handful of them are great. Anyone going into education for money... well, that's laughable. Anyone going into it for power... well, from the perspective of students I'm sure it often FEELS like we have more power than we do.

As to a), the basic idea of instruction is that you have a teacher and a student. You have a subject. You have resources you draw from, like texts. This has been the same since Plato, Pythagoras, even the Presocratics and ostensibly before that. The premise is simple: we're better off sharing our knowledge and insights and building upon what has been discovered before us than trying to discover the world as atoms/islands/rugged individuals. We are not omnipotent or capable of omniscience. Mortality precludes that.

It is, in sum, a pragmatic view of utility and results. But it is also an almost aesthetically pleasing view of human nature as a humble part of a greater whole, as a member of a greater brother/sisterhood.

:lol: Alrighty then.

Precision in thought is only possible with precision in language.

In other words: no, dressing a wound does not make you an intellectual. And yes, maybe part of being an evil propagandist does entail being an intellectual.

You're imbuing the word with a valuation it doesn't contain. Intellectualism doesn't entail anything about good or bad deeds.

No, but it helps.

I partially appreciate where you're coming from, but still find that your valuation of engineering and the expertise that comes with it is at odds with your devaluation of academic philosophy and formal training in that regard. It doesn't add up.

It's like saying we're all scientists because we can boil a pot of water to make tea. Stretching the term beyond it's intended use isn't very helpful.

I don't think I'm anti-intellectual at all. — T Clark

An intellectual is a person who "engages in critical thinking, research, and reflection to advance discussions of academic subjects."

So, you are in part anti-intellectual, because you reject the need for research. You do fulfill the rest of the criteria to a certain degree.

Yeah, a bad teacher can tamper enthusiasm for sure. But spend an hour in the class of even the best teachers and you'll see an ever increasing number of students afflicted with "grumpy student syndrome." Pro-tip: You can usually spot them in the back, frowning intently at their laps (where they think we don't know they have their phones).

There's a lot to be said about that. I mean, everybody's different, but learning that comes naturally, that is, reading and engaging in stuff you find intrinsically attractive and challenging and thought provoking, much more often than not stays with you in a way learning in a classroom rarely does. And it's also a lifelong thing. — Manuel

In my experience, classroom learning works and sticks just fine. The students just need to be open to and ready for it. The current US-American educational system is shepherding through too many people who are uninterested and unready for philosophical (or otherwise academic) training. My best students always include (though are not exclusively) the older, non-trads who have lived a little and come back on their own dime.

Edit for clarity: I'm not suggesting classroom learning is right for everyone or that studying on your own is futile. I'm just saying that classroom learning works for those ready to do the work.
Kind like, people often suggest certain exercises or calorie-deficit diets don't work for weight loss because people don't stick to them. But really the diets and exercises actually work fine, IF you do them.

I legitimately do not understand what you're asking for, hence my request for clarification.

What methods? Classes, reading, writing, exams, classroom discussions, lectures, etc etc etc.

But I'm not even questioning your philosophy. :roll:

See, the thing is, I have repeatedly now pointed out that I'm not actually discrediting the substance of your worldviews at all, because I haven't looked at them. I am merely and solely talking about the difference of how attainable and feasible it is to try and reinvent the wheel/philosophy/engines as a solo person versus by taking advantage of access to the knowledge and practice of literally all of human history.

If you repeatedly take this personally and misconstrue it, that's on you, I'm afraid.

Professionally, I am an engineer. I'm not a professional philosopher. If an engineer makes a mistake, there are potentially very serious consequences for which they would be responsible. If a philosopher makes a mistake, there's not even a good way to know. There aren't any standards by which to judge. It's silly to try to compare the two disciplines. There's probably no one on the forum who is a professional philosopher. — T Clark

Nothing you've said actually discredits the parallel between the disciplines we're trying to draw.

You espouse a curious mixture of disdain for the discipline and the experts therein and yet eager desire to have your own (self-admittedly, uneducated) philosophical views seen as legitimate.

If you for some reason think academia as whole doesn't provide what you mean, can you please elaborate what elements of jiu jitsu (or other) training you mean? And why you think that's not contained in academia?

Again, any quality undergraduate Phil program would provide this kind of training.

Probably depends on the quality of the program you enroll in... but generally speaking, Phil programs cover the how-to's extensively.

I think that advanced training methods could be developed for philosophy, and that it would included studying master works and mentoring — praxis

You mean like.... getting a PhD?

(I'm trying hard to tell if you're just being sarcastic by suggesting we don't have advanced training methods for philosophy.)

I'm not a philosopher, but you can only really judge whether my education is adequate by evaluating the quality of my thought on philosophical issues. — T Clark

Well, no. I can only judge the quality of your thoughts expressed in your posts by going through your posts. Your lack of education is something I'm basing off of your own apparent admission in that regard.

What am I missing? — T Clark

That's the epistemological conundrum: you can't know until you do the work. Sorry, there's no real shortcut to that.

At bottom, philosophy is just the study of the world. The world is the yardstick by which ideas are measured. Boiling down what you have written I come up with "You can't possibly have a good understanding of the world without having read all these guys." And I say, "Show me where I'm wrong. Show me what is missing." No, I don't expect you to do that, but to judge me by the appropriate yardstick without doing it is presumptuous. — T Clark

Philosophy is a study of the world in the way that I guess engineering is the study of engines. I never said you CAN'T have an understanding of the world/engines without books and training. I'm trying to point out that a) it's more unnecessarily arduous and b) you in all likelihood won't wind up with the best theories/engines you're potentially capable of.

Keep in mind too: The world is much more complicated than a car engine.

I'm confused: are we talking about whether one in general can/should do philosophy without training and/or reading the "canon," or are we assessing you and your views for their merit in particular?

If the latter is the case, I honestly don't have time to go through all of your posts and try to make sense of your worldview as a coherent whole.

I'm afraid you're also arguing from a precarious epistemological position: without having read the works of the canon, without having gone through the training, you lack the knowledge and insight to compare your current positions against what they could be after such work. Back to the car example, you may be very satisfied with your engine as it is, but without ever having explored some of the traditional engine models and having gone through training to learn the literal and figurative nuts and bolts of engine design, you simply have no clue if your own engine makes much sense.

I wanted to believe in free will for a looong time. I'll have to look up the article, but then I read an explanation that turned my understanding upside down. Essentially, free will, as it is generally conceptualized in contrast to determinism is not only illogical, it's also undesirable.

Free will, free from your past, your experiences, your genetic make-up and thus your brain structure and capacity to reason... in short, without anything that could actually inform your decision would be totally and completely random. Your actions would just be random firings that made no sense and could be anything at all. You'd be walking around the world clucking like a chicken, trying to eat tree bark, and poking people in the eyeballs for no rhyme or reason.

What people typically want out of this debate is some sense of control and choice in their lives. They think, if my life is determined, I don't have a choice. But really, a completely random and free will is the scenario in which you don't have a choice or control.

In a determined universe, it may be pregiven how much insight you have, how well you're able to reason, etc. But you're still actually doing the reasoning. Your capacity to reason and choose is not diminished by the fact that, for example, you evolved to be able to reason.

The meaning of life without theology is simple: Life has whatever meaning you give it. That's it.

As for the difference between theology and philosophy for explanations and truth: Theology concerns itself primarily with just that. It provides people some ultimate "Truths" and explanations. All the answers pretty much boil down to God.

Philosophy concerns itself with the questions as much as or perhaps more than the answers. What's the meaning of life? The philosopher immediately digs deeper: what is meaning? what is life? what does it matter what the meaning of life is? Is there one answer? Who's asking? How can we know? What does it mean that we are beings that can ask such questions? etc etc etc.

[Thank you :blush: Not sure how long I'll stick around, but it's a rainy day and we're stuck inside :joke: ]

Trying to do philosophy while rejecting the basic readings and any formal tutelage sounds like trying to build a car without training or looking up an instructions or even looking at the building plans for other cars.

Is it possible? Sure. Will you perhaps be freer from preconceived beliefs and therefore create a better or at least interesting and different car? Possibly, but rather unlikely.

Most likely scenario: you'll say the things that have said 100000times before, come to the same dead ends of everyone before you, make the same mistakes, and the end result will be this rickety thing held together with elastic bands and chewing gum that just maybe can putter down the driveway before collapsing in a smoke-billowing sigh of defeat. You'll add some more elastic bands and chewing gum and keep slowly inching your way down the road in exhausting, and nerve-wracking slowness.

But, if that's what you prefer to do, then have at it. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to do philosophy. The books and the education just make everything a helluva lot easier.

Two reasons to avoid squashing bugs on purpose, unless they're harming you:

1. The more research you do into bugs, the more complex you'll find they are. Spiders have self-awareness and the ability to plan into the future, for example. Also you'll learn that while this one single bug may not be important in the grand scheme of things, bugs as a whole are much more important than humans as a whole for life on the planet to continue.

2. As Aristotle and Kant already pointed out, you should do acts that overall strengthen your character and don't create bad moral habits. They said you shouldn't kick a dog, for example, not because they cared much about dogs, but because then you'll slowly, incrementally become more inclined to kick a human.

One is crop related harms, which to my mind extends beyond just harvesting deaths. I have had a pretty fair go at tackling this and have read about all the genuine literature that seems to be out there and in the end, I think it probably is the case that not eating any animals comes out ahead (but only when we factor in farmed and wild-caught aquatic animals as well), but it's by no means a secure case. I think someone eating only range grazed beef and lamb could be doing less harm overall than an urban vegan, especially when we consider related factors such as ecological and environmental impacts. — Graeme M

For one, I don't think it makes sense to compare the impact of the diets of a rural meat-eater with an urban vegan. So what if the rural meat-eater has a lesser environmental impact than an urban vegan? S/he'd have an even lesser impact as a rural vegan.

As far as harvesting deaths go, let's do the math:

There's about 100lbs of meat on the average deer (I'm using deer because as a wild animal we wouldn't even have to clear land for it to graze on). And about 715 calories per lb. That's 71,500 calories per deer.
Soy yields on average 6 million calories per acre. There are 2.47 acres to a hectare. That's 14,820,000 calories per hectare.
They estimate that about 15 animals are killed per hectare of crops. 14,820,000 divided by 15 is: 988,000 calories per dead animal. 988,000 divided by 71,500 is 13.8.

Almost 14 times more animals are killed on a calorie for calorie basis when hunting deer than harvesting soy--which is not even one of the most calorie-dense crops.

evangelical vegans/advocates.

In the end, while I would like to see the world move to the least possible use and harm of other animals that we can attain, I don't know that the goal has to be abolitionism or even animal rights in the manner so many appear to endorse. Perhaps veganism could have greater influence if it were encouraged and expounded in a more genuinely meaningful way than by blind adherence to an often ill-considered ideology. — Graeme M

You see, when I see phrases like "evangelical vegan" or "blind adherence"... well that's another turn off to the conversation, because it just tells me you're already dismissing anything the other side has to say before I say it. It tells me you are not participating in this conversation in good faith.

First I'll say what I broadly agree with that you seem to be saying or implying. I agree that there is no objective source of ethics outside of human thought and logic. I also agree that there are many different interests between species and that humans especially have created idiosyncratic interests. Finally, I agree that it has historically benefited human progress to exploit animals, and that there may be an increasingly small number of reasons why we may have to continue doing so, at least for a little while longer. I think those reasons pretty much just boil down to medicinal ones at this point. We are not dependent on animals for any other materials anymore, like food or clothing.

However, I would first of all caution you against a democratically chosen ethics (which is my best understanding of what you seem to be suggesting) as it has many logical and practical problems. They are too numerous to list all, but for starters, the interests of the majority do not always match interests of minorities. That's how you get slavery and caste systems and a thousand other kinds of exploitation and abuse. Without something like John Rawls' Veil,of Ignorance, you can't rely on the majority to make decisions in the best interests of the minority.

Also, who gets a vote in this system? Does the African slave? Does the child? Does the cow? And although the latter two may not be able to vote practically speaking, shouldn't we have a system in place which considers their interests and those of any human or non-human that has interests but is unable to vote?

What if the majority is lead astray by another Hitler? What do you do when people are making ethics based on wrong information? Was it ethical to hit wives before we had the science to prove that women are just as smart as men? Was it ethical to keep black slaves before we had the knowledge that they are just as human as whites?

Etc etc.

But another thought occured to me today re: wild animal suffering. It seems to me irrelevant whether wild animals do suffer more or less, because it's not like we're raising cattle that would otherwise be in the wild. We're not saving any animals from a life in the wild. We're not taking in wild animals as an act of grace, and we couldn't just release them into the wild if we all went vegan.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaethics/

The SEP is as always a good resource for such things.

In the framework of this discussion, it's about aligning oneself either with the notion of morality being objective or subjective. If it is in any sense the former, there is a conversation to be had. If the latter, well, nothing more to be said ethically as all discussion would be as useful as arguing about ice cream flavors.