philos_sophist's Journal

For the Love of Wisdom: fundamentals of epistemic
Posting Access:
All Members , Moderated
I am a recent graduate of a philosophy program in a university in my home province of British Columbia. I am considering doing a thesis focusing on the history of epistemology, tracing and connecting the development of thought from Socrates to Descartes, Hume to Kant, Kant to Russell and through to Wittgenstein. This would lead to a critique of current theories of epistemology, with a skeptical argument based on the infinite regress theory.
I intend to prop up my skeptical argument with a critique of all the non-skeptics in my litany of philosophers mentioned above. I hope to furnish this with the elegant arguments of Hume for skepticism. I am particularly interested in the formidable if incomprehensible Kant, admittedly for his influence in the development of thought about knoweldge (leading into Russell here) but also because frankly I think he is wrong and I hope to show why.

Now then, in no particular order, I am interested also in Hume's skeptical arguments for their eloquence and lets face it they're just really nice to read. Same deal with Plato, really. Socrates is my true love with his definition of knowledge as justified true belief. Gettier be warned!

(If you have any arguments against Gettier's problem I'd love to add them to my artillery; also if you agree with him please post so that I can review reasons why people believe his argument and develop a more nuanced response.)

I have a theological background and am interested in dancing the tightrope of tieing the christian concept of justification before God in with the purely philosophical concept of justification in the JTB=K epistemic summation.
I am aware this is dangerous but need to be more aware of the particular dangers so if you are a christian committed to both thinking and God, please be free to send your warnings in.

Finally, I will argue that Justified True Belief is Knowledge given a particular context, the one in Proverbs 30. I hope to conclude with an exposition of the sayings of Agur, arguing that Epistemology is totally dependant on a relationship with ones Creator (!)

As part of my thesis it will be necessary to use some of Kants arguments talking of mathematical and scientific knowledge to put these in a seperate category. Kant argued that we can't and shouldn't attempt to do metaphysics. I guess this is my answer to his "Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics": "The Known Knower; Revelation as the Epistemic Foundation"

Please do write!

A note: Lest I seem a control freak, I apologize for making this account by-invitation-only. I hope you e-mail, but I do want to keep this a quality account with scholarly (not necessarily always serious) posts that reflect informed perspectives and contribute to an intelligent dialogue. (I.e. I do not want some of the random posters some philosophy accounts get.) So if you are game, please e-mail me a quick e-mail with your particular interests and background and I will almost certainly approve you. However I will scan your first posts prior to sending your comments out to the community. Don't worry - any contributions you make are to your credit. In the end this means a more organized community with less unintelligible and random posts you have to sort out through in your readings.

Light and Joy!

I hope this forum may work as a crucible to refine my ideas.