The “truth” of something does not need verification to be a reality, but it does need verification if it needs to have any value attributed to it.
That comes from someone much smarter than me.
After doing some reading last year, I decided to abandon many of my normative values in an attempt to re-evaluate everything. However, I realized that instead of just a re-evaluation, I should re-apply my normative values in order to better analyze them. After all, the age of a normative value sometimes (emphasis on sometimes) correlates with an inherent truth or wisdom in adopting that value.
If that didn’t make sense to anyone, please complain about it.
I have been interested in epistemology for a while, but I have been on such a busy schedule lately that I haven’t had time to work out my theories a whole lot. So far, this wikipedia.com entry has been my only source of information and introduction to epistemology problems.
Epistemology is a study that analyzes knowledge and belief including its nature, limitations, and validity. The field of epistemology is fairly recent in philosophy, but it has its roots back to Plato. Plato asserted that knowledge involved both belief and truth. According to Plato, all of our knowledge stemmed from where those two overlapped. Also included is justification, which verifies the truth of the belief. These three combined result in knowledge.
Justification is undoubtedly important. But what happens when your belief is justified and true, but not be knowledge? (Search the Wikipedia page for examples). This is a problem asked by Gettier. One response, as proposed by Kirkham, is that justification only works if truth is a necessity for that justification.
What are your thoughts on epistemology?