There is a dispute between philosophers about what the definition of knowledge is.
However, a dictionary entry on knowledge reads:
(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association (2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique b (1): the fact or condition of being aware of something (2): the range of one's information or understanding <answered to the best of my knowledge> c: the circumstance or condition of apprehending truth or fact through reasoning : cognition d: the fact or condition of having information or of being learned <a person of unusual knowledge>
There are many different uses of the word. To limit the discussion to what I am referring to, knowledge is that which is believed, true, and justified. In other words, factual information that we are consciously aware of.
If we wish to disagree that facts exist, we start to question whether or not anything can be "true" or whether anything "exists". Which is fine, I can have that discussion, I've had it enough times. And I know, because I remember, because I was there, and there is proof of it, and the conclusion that "I think therefore I am" is justified.
Ergo, knowledge. Those who dispute whether or not knowledge exists dispute whether or not they themselves exist. And when one does that, I question whether or not they steer away from a toddler they see walking in the street. Because, after all, who knows whether or not that child exists?
I prefer the rational opinion on knowledge, which is that it exists and we can perceive it. The opposing opinion is self-defeating and inherently worthless, because even if someone knew that there is no such thing as knowledge, they would ipso facto be completely wrong at the same time.
Ah, paradoxes. Sometimes they help us prove what cannot be true. Hence, knowledge.
Bookmarks