Hello. I am Tempest. I am a grade 12 student who is currently writing a philosophical essay. I would love to receive your suggestion and to discuss with you about the topic of my essay to gain more insight.
My essay is about how media constructs knowledge of global events. Our knowledge is greatly influenced by the media (newspaper and televisions). Thus, I am interested in knowing how we obtain the knowledge of an event, especially a global one, through media. For instance, our knowledge of the existence of Gulf War mostly came from the media. What if the event did not happen and it were a fabrication of the media? How can we say that we know the event, if we use the principle of justified true belief?
Furthermore, I am interested in knowing the nature of this kind of knowledge. Can it be considered as absolute truth? Is it changeable?
I would love to discuss with all of you on this topic.
I would also appreciate suggestion on some reading materials.
Thank you so much for your help.

Thank you kennethamy (Is this how I should address you?) for your insight on certainty of knowledge.
I agree with you that we can know something without absolute certainty. As mentioned, if we view knowledge as justified, true belief, we need to have substantial justification. However, we are unlikely to be sure that the justification is adequate. Common method of justification is to look for coherence, cohesion and collaboration. Of course, even if we conduct all of these, we are unlikely entitled to be absolute certain about the knowledge.
Back to my question on the essay, I am curious about the process of obtaining knowledge (justified, true belief) from media (focuses mainly on televisions and newspapers).
My initial thought is that from televisions and newspaper, we gather all images and sounds as "crude information". After that, we collaborate the information with existing knowledge to build up our understanding of the event. For instance, we see soldiers firing their rifles on television and hear the sound of bombs. Then, we link back to our ideas of war and conclude that a war is happening.
Then, we proceed to justification. For instance, we hear the news from our family and friends. We see our President talk about it. It increases the certainty of the event until we see it as a justification and conclude that we know a war is happening.
That is my rough idea of how we know through media.
When you are watching television or reading an article, how do you know? Do you have any feedback on the process of obtaining knowledge through the media.
I would like to hear more from you.

Hello. I am Tempest. I am a grade 12 student who is currently writing a philosophical essay. I would love to receive your suggestion and to discuss with you about the topic of my essay to gain more insight.
My essay is about how media constructs knowledge of global events. Our knowledge is greatly influenced by the media (newspaper and televisions). Thus, I am interested in knowing how we obtain the knowledge of an event, especially a global one, through media. For instance, our knowledge of the existence of Gulf War mostly came from the media. What if the event did not happen and it were a fabrication of the media? How can we say that we know the event, if we use the principle of justified true belief?
Furthermore, I am interested in knowing the nature of this kind of knowledge. Can it be considered as absolute truth? Is it changeable?
I would love to discuss with all of you on this topic.
I would also appreciate suggestion on some reading materials.
Thank you so much for your help.

Knowing something is one thing, but being absolutely certain (without the possibility of being wrong) is a very different thing.

There are two kinds of knowledge, certain knowledge and probable knowledge. As Vico puts it, "we know what we make". We make logical systems so we know them with absolute certainty. We are not the makers of the world so we can only have probable knowledge of the world.

Still, Descartes, for instance, held each one of us could know, with certainty, that he exists. And that is not something we make true.

Cogito, ergo sum is a logical argument and therefore based on logic, which we make.

No. Descartes said that for each of us, I exist, is absolutely certain. We never made it true that we exist. I am not talking about any argument. I am talking about a statement which was the conclusion of the argument.

P1. Thinking things exist.
P2. I think.

C1. Therefore I exist.

P1. is true by definition of what existence means, which we make. P2. is true by definition of what thinking means, which we make. The conclusion shows us only the relationship between the terms existence and thinking as we have defined them. It's a completely closed system. That we can't doubt that we are doubting is a limitation of our particular system of logic, which we make. It doesn't tell us anything outside of that.

My essay is about how media constructs knowledge of global events. Our knowledge is greatly influenced by the media (newspaper and televisions). Thus, I am interested in knowing how we obtain the knowledge of an event, especially a global one, through media. For instance, our knowledge of the existence of Gulf War mostly came from the media. What if the event did not happen and it were a fabrication of the media? How can we say that we know the event, if we use the principle of justified true belief?

Everything exists.

Descartes certainly did not hold that only thinking things exist.

Do you know of a different system of logic which does not come to the conclusion that if one doubts he exists, and if one cannot doubt without existing, then that person exists? If so, what is it?

Tautologically.



Again, it appears you are correcting something that was never said.



Logical systems are human constructs. Descartes' argument does not give us knowledge about anything other than our own closed system of logic.

So, you will be able to explain how it is possible for a person to think he exists even if he does not exist. Use any logic you like. Be my guest.

P1. Thinking things exist.
P2. I think.

C1. Therefore I exist.

P1. is true by definition of what existence means, which we make. P2. is true by definition of what thinking means, which we make. The conclusion shows us only the relationship between the terms existence and thinking as we have defined them. It's a completely closed system. That we can't doubt that we are doubting is a limitation of our particular system of logic, which we make. It doesn't tell us anything outside of that.

That's not remotely a challenge at all. If I can create my own logical system then I am free to toss out any axioms I like, such as the law of non-contradiction.

And although I agree that all thinking things exist, just as I agree that all walking things exist, I don't see how either are "true by definition". I am surprised you find it so clear.

Existing is a precondition of having properties.

A requirement for a logic system is that it be consistent.

It seems you know exactly what I'm talking about, as you've already stated as much yourself.



There are two ways that something can be true; by corresponding with the facts or by being true by definition or axiomatically, in other words.



Why is that? Who says?

Paraconsistent Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

It seems you know exactly what I'm talking about, as you've already stated as much yourself.



There are two ways that something can be true; by corresponding with the facts or by being true by definition or axiomatically, in other words.



Why is that? Who says?

Paraconsistent Logic (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Right. Just as there is fringe physics, there is fringe logic. I don't do it, since I think it is pointless. If you want to think in contradictions, do so.

In any case, walking things exist is not "true by definition" although it may be a necessary truth. But then, some necessary truths are not true by definition. Every event has a cause may be a necessary truth, but it is not true by definition.

Well that's fine but you can't pretend they don't exist just because it suits your argument.



If it's not true by definition then it's true by corresponding with the facts. I don't know of any facts that are necessary. I don't see how you could either.