2003

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1949  Tuesday, 7 October 2003

[1]     From:   Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Oct 2003 13:38:39 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[2]     From:   John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Oct 2003 14:23:50 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[3]     From:   Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Oct 2003 09:54:37 -0400
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[4]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Monday, 6 Oct 2003 18:50:36 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Robin Hamilton <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Oct 2003 13:38:39 +0100
Subject: 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

Re: Gettier cases.

_Hamlet_, maybe, if we accept that Claudius +did+ kill Old Hamlet.

For a time, Hamlet has true belief but not knowledge that Claudius has
committed murder.

The Mousetrap gives him knowledge -- "More lights!"

But perhaps he was walking past the wrong bar, and Claudius simply
wanted more light to read his notes as to what to say at the next
meeting with the Norwegian ambassadors.

Doesn't this go back to Plato on the distinction between knowledge and
opinion?  I've not come on the idea of "Gettier cases" before - sounds
interesting.

Robin Hamilton

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           John Drakakis <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Oct 2003 14:23:50 +0100
Subject: 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

Try the debates about virginity,

esp. Iago's comments in Othello:  "They oft have it that have it not.."
etc.

Cheers,
John Drakakis

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Hugh Grady <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Oct 2003 09:54:37 -0400
Subject: 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

"Othello" is your encyclopedia for this effect, and several variations
on it. And be sure to take a look at Stanley Cavell's "Disowning
Knowledge."

--Hugh Grady

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Monday, 6 Oct 2003 18:50:36 -0400
Subject: 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.1940 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

>These involve scenarios in which it does not seem that the
>subject has knowledge even though he or she does have a justified true
>belief.  The following is the kind of example that Gettier forwarded.
>
>I walk past a pub when there's an England football match on the TV
>inside.  I hear a cheer and come to believe that England have scored.
>And, they have.  So, I have a true belief and good reasons to think that
>it is true (England fans in pubs cheer when England score).  However,
>unbeknownst to me I was walking past a different bar of the pub, one
>which was hosting a karaoke competition and the cheers I heard were for
>a good rendition of a song.  The intuition here, then, is that we would
>not want to say that I know a goal has been scored.  I have a true
>belief for which I have (seemingly) good reasons yet this does not
>amount to knowledge.  I've just, in effect, been lucky.

I don't follow this.  As I see it, what happened was that you
incorrectly thought your belief was justified.

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.