Yeshivishsocrates1

no, that is the discussion, how to define knowledge. in philosophy, nothing is accepted if it cant be verbalised and clearly defined. having an indescribable feeling of what the work knowledge means is not enough. the point was to define it.

as for my studies in Mesopotamia, surely the decision is mine?

ha 🙂

now were truly in the realms of philosophy. the very problem we’re discussing is the definition of knowing something 100%. the example never suggests that he knows who will win, just that he believes that Y will win.

i know you have an issue with that, that was the point of my message. that Gettiers problem is not with the logical leap of faith required for the law of transitivity of identity but yours is. The statement, the winner will have ten coins in his pocket, is a true statement which qualifies for the third condition of knowledge. You want to ask that the statement isnt true because the winner described in the original statement is Yoeli. But without the background information that you have, if C would have just said out loud, that the winner will have ten coins in his pocket, without explaining how he came to that conclusion, wed have to check his pockets when he won and then confirm that the statement was true. the fact is that that statement is true and thats the important part of the problem. the question with that is that although all the conditions are met, we cannot suggest that Chaim knew that the winner had ten coins in his pocket as he didnt know what was in his own pocket.

As for your problem with transitive properties, consider:

A. elephants are grey

B. Steve is an elephant

The knowledge of A and B gives us the right to deduce c, that steve is grey. we can phrase this in a few different ways and still draw similar conclusions, we dont need to phrase it in every possible way. we dont need to say that steve the elephant is grey, just that steve is grey.

in the same way.

A Yoel will be the winner

B Yoel has ten coins in his pocket.

This allows us to deduce that the winner has ten coins in his pocket. at the time that this assumption is being made, we believe that Yoel will win and we are justified in beleiving so which validates the entire thought process. The conclusion to this line of thinking is that the winner has ten coins in his pocket.

was that any help?

*specifically

The law of transitivity of identity is that if a bears resemblance to b and b bears resemblance to c, then a bears some resemblance to c. in this case, to follow through with the law would be to say that a, Yoeli will get the job, b, Yoeli has ten coins in his pocket and c, the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. these three ideas are interdependent. the belief that Yoeli will a, get the job and b, has the ten coins in his pocket results in the transitive conclusion that the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket. in the afformentioned example, the justified true belief in question is that the person who will eventually get the job. the law of transitivity is what gives chaim the justifiability to conclude as such. he has assumed, apparently justifiably, that yoeli will get the job and that yoeli has ten coins in his pocket. armed with these two pieces of information, he can justifiably assume that the person who will eventually get the job has ten coins in his pocket. it is this belief which is under discussion. we can call this belief “p.” In the original laws for defining knowledge, we need three things, for p to be true, for chaim to believe that p is true and for him to be justified in doing so. in our case, p is eventually true because even know it was based on false assumptions, namely that Yoeli would get the job, it was true. the person who got the job had ten coins in his pocket. the other two conditions are also met, he was justified (by the law of transitivity of identity in believing b to be true and the final condition, he believed b to be true. therefore, gettier is justified in asking his question.

this is an idea which is difficult to convey in writing but bear with me while i try one more time to talk it all the way through. Gettier poses that the three conditions of knowledge, ie, believing p to be true, being justified in believing its true and it eventually being true, are insufficient as a definition of knowledge. to illustrate this insufficiency, he poses the example in the OP. In this example, P, is the belief. (That the person who will get the job has ten coins in his pocket.) Chaim believes it to be true. condition one met.

Chaim is justified in believing it to be true. (as he has employed the law of transivity of identity and since he believes Yoeli will get the job and that Yoeli has ten coins in his pocket, he is justified in believing that the winner will have ten coins in his pocket.) Condition two met.

P is true. The winner (albeit not the person chaim originally thought would win) has ten coins in his pocket. Condition three met.

And this is exactly the point of Gettiers question. It is true that all of the three conditions were met, but yet by virtue of the fact the the justification, although justifiable at the time of thinking it, was false and so with this flaw in Chaims thinking, how can we still consider that he KNEW that P would be true. The fact is that his thought process was flawed and the outcome cannot vindicate his original thought because it was flawed. As such he concludes that there must be a revised definition of knowledge and Chaims belief in P cannot be considered KNOWLEDGE of P.

On a side note, an original prediction coming true cannot be used to support the original thinking of it. If i flip a coin and say i know it will land on heads, everyone will agree that i have a 50 percent chance of getting it right, and so the fact that it eventually happened cannot have any bearing on the original statement of knowledge. The original definition of knowledge doesnt rely only on the outcome, it uses it in a combination of three conditions, but as explained above, it cant even be used as one of three. The fact that is was true has to be an irrelevant fact.

Please feel free to ask any questions if you feel like my answer lacked sufficient explanation.

Good luck 😉

I dont think that the reporting of this news story can be considered airing of dirty laundry, nor is it satisfaction of some morbid curiosity. It always puzzles me why we go through such great lengths to protect our criminals. We, as an am have been known to harbour criminals, pervert the course of justice, seek to vindicate and in this case, not report the crimes of our people. Doesnt their reprehensible and frankly abhorrent behaviour act as a forfeit for the protection which comes along with being part of klal yisrael. Dont get me wrong, i’m familiar with the whole kol yisrael areivim thing but it seems to me that someone who didnt take our reputation into consideration doesnt deserve the courtesy from us. The detention system will keep him and those of his ilk out of the reach of vulnerable members of klal yisrael who actually do deserve our protection. Some vigilance and awareness, not for the sake of gloating or leering at news items, but for the sake of the protection of our own people would not, in my opinion, go amiss.

Which way? What did I do?

*incidents not incidence

What an interesting thread and yet more interesting (and of course disturbing) than the thread itself is the anger that it seems to be causing. If I may offer my humble opinion.

Yes, to all defensive mordern orthodox posters who seek refuge in the fakers in the yeshivish communities, there are people who wear one face and live another. Big whoop. There are people all over the world in all walks of life who are fakers. However, the movement which is both adhered to and supported by all of the gedolim of our generation and generations past is one which is built on integrity and stringent observance, to the letter, of the torah. Many within in have strayed and many will continue to stray, they may not even outwardly show this deviance, but what they stray from is a movement with ideals and utmost devout intentions. On the other hand, and cry all you like about it, the modern orthodox movement is damaged from the start. It’s inadherence to the very basic of requirements mean that even those who steadfastly cling to it, are misguided and not performing as they are required to. The word modern has no place when it comes to Judaism. To suggest an evolution in Judaism is to imply that it’s impressive creator was unaware of the trajectory of time on earth. A ludicrous statement. An omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, supranatural being layed down the rules in this game and ours is not to question why. Setting an example to children that some things can be omitted within Judaism leads him to wonder why not others. There is no room for surprise when he decides to add others and then abscond every part of Judaism. I love all Jews and respect them for their individual ways of life – as people, but when it comes to right and wrong, there’s no debate and no margin of error.

Religious views don’t riot? Take a visit to meah shearim or ramat bet shemesh when they have a nice, civil riot and let me know if you’d like to revise that statement.

Grrr. I think my post deserves posting…

I think if you post something, and it gets deleted, and then you post it again, and it gets deleted, and then you post it again–you should just go post it on a different website, since after a while the mods are going to get annoyed and block you.

-95

Because he was an ish tzaddik? Because he walked tomim with hashem? Because he’s the father of everyone on earth?

The Avos were shomer Torah and mitzvos. The Jewish nation is a tremendous link of chains of generations which dates back to Avraham Avinu’s discovery of monotheism. From that point, we have an unbroken chain of people, all following the same religion. The labour period of our nation began at yitziyas mitzrayim and ended with our birth at kabalas hatorah. Moshe rabbeinu received the entire torah at Har Sinai, he didn’t just get the chmisha chumshei, he got everything and they Jewish people kept everything from that moment. Admittedly, focuses and various practices MAY possibly be slightly different but the idea is an immutable, unwavering dedication to the one hashem. In this way, we are unique. Great nations rose and fell but none, in the way that we have, have remained in the way they were initially started. People who live in Egypt today have no more than a historical connection, at best to their ancestors. Theyve absconded their righteous dedication to Ra and the such like. Egypt is predominately Muslim, Islam is a religion which started way after ours and so yes, we have outsurvived the Egyptians.

Eureka, I’ve got it, cancel the cherem of rabbeinu gershom and have the men sitting flanked by their two wives, that way, the men only sit next to their own wives and mixed seating wont be a problem at all!

The hand holding issue after the chuppa, as far as I’m aware, is subject to debate. In general, none (within reason) would maintain that it is ok for a couple to hold hands in public, however, an exception is made, according to some, in order that there should be no hefsek between chuppa and yichud. Note that this is a special exception at best, Gateshead is not the exception here, hand holders are. Ps. Reb Aaron Shexhter (to the best of my knowledge) the rosh yeshiva of Chaim Berlin, advocates the practice of holding hands, for this one exception.

*which side to pick – stupid auto correct.

In all seriousness, Noachs comparative assessment still sets him light years away from anyone alive in the last few millennia. Noach, even if less than Avraham, still walked where we can only dream. Noach conversed with God himself, Noach was the single person that God chose to be the originator of every human being on this earth. To even facetiously suggest that he was just some old alcoholic is insulting the one who chose him to start off his world. Lot, a confirmed ‘bad guy’ was still graced with an Angelic visit which just demonstrates that even with all his bad, he was leagues ahead of us, the worst that there is to say about Noach is that he might not have been number one in Avrahams world. Please be cautious when mocking the great people of our history.

What makes Longhand more correct than shorthand? it’s the simple evolution of language doing battle with the older generations propensity to cling to the rocks rooting them to the past to avoid the terrifying waves of the future. You’ll notice that despite your valiant efforts, this is a fight which you won’t win. Notice your relief at the fact that we no longer speak English like they did hundreds of years ago, no one speaks like Shakeapeare anymore. In fact someone who did would experience difficulty in being understood. Do you mean to suggest that the ‘proper’ English of today is more ‘mentchlich’ than the English of the days of yore? Surely not and so, you too appreciate the evolving nature of communication. The ubiquitous lamentations of the proud older generation is irrational and just arrogant. (not that I mean to suggest anything of the sort about you personally, I don’t even know if you are indeed older than I am) Do they also ‘force themselves’ to adhere to the mentchlich horse and cart over the mageifa of the modern day automobile? This has nothing to do with correctness or otherwise, it’s merely a fallacious belief that your education exceeds the so called education of the succeeding generation and so this condemnation of the way things have become. Once more, if a message is successful in delivering its intended content without causing any difficulty to the one who has to decipher it, it shouldt be problematic in any way.