Gettier's Theory Of Knowledge Analysis

Gettier approaches knowledge as a personal view of knowledge a knowledge that through justified true beliefs one cannot have knowledge of something due to limitations of the self-obtained knowledge. Zagzebski says that these limitations are inescapable when talking about knowledge formed from justified true beliefs as most knowledge is obtained through luck that one 's justified true belief fell upon through chance. I will argue that both of these models don 't view knowledge in a way that allows for deeper meaning or extrapolated interpretation to be able to be used in the real world as a means defining knowledge. I will focus on the Brown owns a Ford or is in Barcelona, thought experiment; to explore knowledge and its relations to justified …show more content…
I perceive internalist justification as intimate knowledge and externalist justification as collective knowledge. In the context of time, moment to moment knowledge of something that one holds as a JTB is intimate knowledge. These are beliefs held true to only oneself through their own unique experiences. At any moment in time, their knowledge is true if they believe it is true for that is their reality. Since one can only exist in their reality, while it may be deviant to other coexisting realities is is true for them on the intimate level. From there-there are direct comparisons of knowledge with other individuals, further from that you have a collective knowledge that you weigh your JTB against. Though individual interactions or through contemplation of a JTB compared to a collective JTB one 's knowledge can change and therefore their reality is changed. These things all happen moment to moment. Knowledge always exists and it fluctuates with the passing of time. When you look at the moment when Smith no longer possessed a Ford and acquired a Porsche, that moment in time holds multiple truths. Gettier will argue that once this has occurred then the very essence of knowledge has changed, Pete 's luck as run out and he no longer has knowledge in his JTB. Yet who has this omnipotent knowledge of all things and all times in all possibilities? Certainly no one individual for all things. In the moment of change, Smith has knowledge they now have a Porsche, a third person party privy to that interaction now has knowledge of this shift of Smith having a Porsche. So in the grand scheme all previous knowledge of Smith and their car is abolished, but since there is no grand record keeper of all knowledge at all times the argument seems moot to the task it is trying to achieve. In that moment Pete has knowledge at an intimate