Ok, so this is the question.
Can one culture or area of the world or even one era, for that matter, claim to have more knowledge than another culture/area/era because more of their beliefs are properly justified???
For example, while one culture may only be able to base their beliefs off of instinct or what was believed in the past, does that make those beliefs less justifiable than a culture that can justify theirs with techonology, scientific investigation, etc., maybe even in addition to instinct and the like?
Does this tie into personal vs. descriptive justifications? does that descriptive knowledge have to count for the whole world, for all time (is that what Truth is??) or just for the era, the locality?
Does that mean we are moving any closer to the Truth as we go along and gather more means of proper justification?
Does your head hurt yet?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Also, bridging off of what Deep said, an era can also not have more knowledge than another. Knowledge is a PJTB, thus the primary way of proving something to be knowledge is by justifying it. Justification can happen in many ways, and I believe that each era had the same amount of knowledge than the last one. Yes, in our generation now, we have computers and the internet and science; This means nothing. We have new ways of justifying, not new "Knowledges". The concept of "more knowledge" is also flawed, as Deep has said PJTB's are endless, and thus you can't have more than endless.
Anyhoo, that's my rant. How many posts have I ended with that? Hmmm. Oh well.
Post a Comment