HI, I've been reading epistemology and I read this article but I dont quite understand what he is trying to prove. Can anyone explain it to me? He talks about knowing something and at the same time being certain of it, but there is an arguement that I dont quite understand....anyone know?
2006-11-14 12:05:20 · 2 answers · asked by Dreamer 3 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
He is trying to demonstrate how you are NOT supposed to be defining something by bringing up a classical example of "obscure definition"[1]
He is trying to define a hard term -- "knowledge" with hard terms "right" and "sure".
2006-11-14 14:50:37 · answer #1 · answered by hq3 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
go to court face the judge see him say you loose. now does this piss you off. try it again see there are three half walnut shells in front of you one has a pea under it. if they left the shell and you don't see the pea do you not want to left the other two shells to see if there was a pea in the game at all !! somethings can be overlooked and assume things is called making an *** out of you and me as the joke goes- so if life gives you three shell see if there is a pea in the game otherwise they lift one shell and you loose and you never know?
2006-11-14 20:52:18 · answer #2 · answered by bev 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋