It is widely agreed that Plato came up with the classical definition of knowledge: “justified true belief”. Here, truth is thought to be a correlation between what we think and what is real. Belief is a mental attitude about a concept, for example, I believe the sky is blue. Justification is the way we have reached the belief. Using Plato’s definition for a belief to count as knowledge, it must be attained in a specific way; it can not be the result of chance. We must be certain about the belief and have discovered and developed it in a well-reasoned manner. This brings us to the question: what counts as knowledge?
To answer this question we must first explore our sources of knowledge. It is widely thought perception and sense are the most reliable way to attain knowledge. I am certain there is a laptop in front of me because my senses relaying that information to me.
However, Descartes opposes this concept by using what he referred to as “methodological doubt”. Everyone is in agreement that our senses can be deceiving sometimes. Additionally, there appears to be no definitive way of determining whether or not the information relayed by our senses are from the wider reality of a moment or a construct of our self-conscious, such as a dream. Descartes’ solution to this predicament was to attempt to acquire a singular piece of “indubitable knowledge” which may act as a foundation for all our knowledge. Therefore, I’m certain that I’m having such experiences even thought I may be deceived. This type of knowledge is certain; it is distant and clear.
Nevertheless, this criterion does not seem so reliable. How does one distinguish between a distant and clear thought and an unclear thought? This is a classic example of “internal” criteria, which has been subject to defence and criticism.
With Kant, a more subtle and complex theory of knowledge emanated. Kant pursued a novel line of questioning: ‘What cognitive conditions need to obtain for there to be knowledge in the first place?’ Before attempting to establish what knowledge is, we need to understand how our minds work. Elucidating the concept of knowledge thus necessitates a comprehensive critique of reason, by which we acknowledge its limitations and understand how to most effectively utilise it.
From this evolution we can deduce that what counts as knowledge is interpretational and unique to individuals.