(March 18, 2017 at 1:55 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: I would define knowledge to be what we honestly believe.
The reason I say that, is because, if we define knowledge as what we are justified or not, we may not be able to distinguish when we are justified and when we are not. What makes distinguish warranted justified belief from none-warranted unjustified belief, is simple, it's honesty. When we are honest to ourselves, we can distinguish between what we truly believe and what we don't. It's not about simply belief, but warranted belief, but to distinguished the warrant and non-warranted, is through honesty.
Knowledge is not a certainty. Certainty is when we are very strong at that perception with honesty and warranted belief.
Certainty is a level of knowledge. That itself has stages, and the more stronger the power of reason and sight of the heart is, the more we will be certain.
When one honestly assess what what truly believes, that is knowledge.
No. You are trying to equate your perception of your own morality, to your own desires.
This is word salad. The biggest problem with this is that an individual can falsely believe and truly believe they are being honest and be dead wrong. The ancient Egyptians were a very successful society for 3,000 years and truly believed in their gods. The were being honest about what they believed to be true at the time, and they were dead wrong.
The only thing that is required in finding facts is objectivity and going where the evidence leads, not where you personally want it to go. That is real honesty. The willingness to correct your position when data shows you that your position needs to be adapted or even scrapped. Everything you said above is a romantic idea not a pragmatic definition of how proper logic works.
Your heart pumps blood, throwing the word "reason" in that sentence is simply what you do to sound logical. None of what you said is the definition of how good logic works. I am sure you honestly believe what you say, but you are wrong.
