My first "Down for the Count with Eric Darsie, from CamelClutchBlog[dot]com!
http://www.camelclutchblog.com/the-first-ever-among-the-fozzy-fanatics/
Down for the Count with Eric Darsie: the First Ever among the Fozzy Fanatics
Welcome to the very first edition of “Down for the Count with Eric Darsie,” featuring one of your favorite writers here on CamelClutchBlog.com, me, Eric Robert Darsie (or at least I hope so, because you are reading this!). But after thinking over Thanksgiving and the days that proceeded, I thought of other possible ways could I contribute to help better CamelClutchBlog.com. Besides doing the ‘WWE Week-in-Review,’ the WWE pay-per-view preview and predictions, and the occasional wrestling flashbacks, I thought of this new idea. “Down for the Count with Eric Darsie”- where I give my thoughts and opinions on certain things, like bands, wrestlers, people, politics, the world, news, etc., so-on, and even so-forth. And after some consideration of what I could give my opinion on for the very first “Down for the Count with Eric Darise,” I thought what else would be better for me to write about other than….
FOZZY!
Why Fozzy, you may ask. If you have heard me on Eric Gargiulo’s Pro Wrestling Radio, I have publicly announced that I am a huge Jericholic. And it only would be fitting for me to give Chris Jericho’s outside-of-the-pro-wrestling-business-ventures a tryout. After buying their first two albums, Fozzy and Happenstance, I fell in love with the band. Their hard rock beats and their deep lyrics, they touched the rock-and-roll soul that I have inside.
But Fozzy, I really enjoy. The reason why I love them is because they aren’t played too much on the radio. Heck, I haven’t even heard them played on the radio before, and to be honest with you, I feel like the only reason behind that is because Chris Jericho is a professional wrestler. If that’s the case, I find that to be utter b.s.
Coming early January, Fozzy will come out with their fourth album since 2000, entitled “Chasing the Grail.” An album that will be capped after their last release back in 2005. The biggest song on the third album had to be “Enemy” because both TNA and the WWE used that song for a pay-per-view theme song. Maybe, just maybe, if Fozzy’s third album got some press from the wrestling fans, maybe after the fourth album gets put out, they may get a chance to be taken seriously.
And come Tuesday, December 15th, 2009, Fozzy’s single, Martyr No More, will be released on iTunes. I believe that everyone should go out and spend 99 cents to own it, because Fozzy rocks everyone’s socks off, and it will be the best 99 cents that you will ever spend (given if they sell it for 99 cents… http://www.fozzyrock.com/)!
And people should check out two of the tracks from their coming album!
Let the Madness Begin’
Martyr No More’
But to conclude, I hope you guys enjoyed this first edition of “Down for the Count with Eric Darsie.” I don’t know when, but hopefully soon, I will have another edition of “Down for the Count with Eric Darsie.” I may discuss Ric Flair. I may discuss Sean Mooney. I may discuss tag team wrestling. We have to wait and see, now don’t we? Until next time, this is Eric Darsie from Minnesota, up before the ref’s ten count!
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Is Knowledge and Justified True Belief One-and-the-Same?
My first paper for my Epistemology Philosophy class, hope you guys enjoy!
Eric Darsie
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009
Philosophy 303|Epistemology
Paper 1
Is Knowledge and Justified True Belief One-and-the-Same?
There’s a question that’s been debated in Epistemology and the question is if “knowledge and justified true belief one in the same?” After some thought and some philosophical consideration, I feel like I came up with an adequate answer to that question. I feel like there is a difference between having knowledge and having justified true belief. In this paper, I will distinguish knowledge from justified true belief, and what the differences are with them.
Here are my definitions of justified true belief and of knowledge:
Justified true belief: a valid true belief.
Knowledge: understanding gained through observation and/or experience.
Now with definitions of both justified true belief and knowledge, let me explain why they are two separate identities. In my eyes, a justified true belief is merely a belief that can be proved out to be valid and proved out to be true. Also, to me, any kind of belief is mere opinion, and opinions can change with the wind, they come and go by whatever situation that arises. At least for me, that’s when I see for justified true belief.
Knowledge is something that is strived for, something that people want to get and hold onto. Knowledge is what you experience to be true, as well as a society as a whole could observe to be true. Knowledge cannot be grasped and be held unto right away; knowledge takes time for someone to be able to have it. Unlike justified true belief, knowledge can be held by any amount of people, up to n.
To help set up why knowledge and justified true belief and two separate items that can be grasped, I will discuss what is commonly known among philosophers as the basic definition of knowledge and will show why each premise is necessary.
S knows p if and only if [a] p is true
[b] S believes p, and
[c] S is justified in believing p.
For premise [a], ‘p is true’ is necessary because if p wasn’t true, then knowledge can’t even be knowledge! If p wasn’t true, then people wouldn’t want it. Yes, one could be mislead on believing that p is true, but if that’s the case, I don’t feel that they wouldn’t go too far on it becoming knowledge. But back on track, if p wasn’t true, then there would be no way of going onto the second and third premise for the basic definition of knowledge.
Now onto premise [b], that ‘S believes p.’ I feel that premise [b] ties in directly with premise [a] in ways of p has to be true before S would decide to believe it. Like in premise [a], someone could be mislead on believing that p is true than believe in p, but if that’s the case, and if another moral agent is aware of it, they would correct that person and set them on the right track if they were mislead. And like I somewhat touched on, S wouldn’t believe p if S didn’t believe that p is true. So premises [a] and [b] go hand-in-hand on if one of them is accepted, then both of them are.
The last premise, premise [c] states ‘S is justified in believing p.’ To make premise [c] make sense, I’ll reword it to: ‘S is right in believing p.’ I think after changing up the wording of premise [c], if premise [a] and [b] were fulfilled, [c] would tend to follow. But to look at the premise ‘S is right in believing p’ would be true if S would believe p and p is true. And just a thought, it could be said that premise is circular to premise [b], that if S believes p then it would be justified in believing p. But in turn, for premise [c] to be fulfilled, p would have to be true and S would have to believe in p (premise [a] and [b]). With premises [a] and [b] having to be accepted before premise [c] to be accepted, it wouldn’t be circular to accept premise [c] because S would be right in believing p due to the two prior premises would make it valid.
So after looking at each premise and discussing why they are necessary for the basic (or broken down version) definition of knowledge, I do believe that they all are necessary for the definition for knowledge. The reason why I say that is because knowledge cannot stand on anything other than those three premises. If one tries to add more premises to the definition for knowledge, it would be harder and harder for one to be able to have it, and if it’s too hard to get it, then no one would want knowledge, and if you take away any of the premises, it wouldn’t be knowledge, because it could be easily changed and persuaded.
But going back to the original question, knowledge is different from justified true belief because of those three premises. Justified true belief is a belief that is true and valid. Knowledge, like already explained, is an understanding gained through observation and/or experience. Justified true belief can be held by a number of people. It’s easy to change it compared to knowledge, which I showed above. As a result, knowledge and justified true belief are two separate identities.
Eric Darsie
Thursday, December 3rd, 2009
Philosophy 303|Epistemology
Paper 1
Is Knowledge and Justified True Belief One-and-the-Same?
There’s a question that’s been debated in Epistemology and the question is if “knowledge and justified true belief one in the same?” After some thought and some philosophical consideration, I feel like I came up with an adequate answer to that question. I feel like there is a difference between having knowledge and having justified true belief. In this paper, I will distinguish knowledge from justified true belief, and what the differences are with them.
Here are my definitions of justified true belief and of knowledge:
Justified true belief: a valid true belief.
Knowledge: understanding gained through observation and/or experience.
Now with definitions of both justified true belief and knowledge, let me explain why they are two separate identities. In my eyes, a justified true belief is merely a belief that can be proved out to be valid and proved out to be true. Also, to me, any kind of belief is mere opinion, and opinions can change with the wind, they come and go by whatever situation that arises. At least for me, that’s when I see for justified true belief.
Knowledge is something that is strived for, something that people want to get and hold onto. Knowledge is what you experience to be true, as well as a society as a whole could observe to be true. Knowledge cannot be grasped and be held unto right away; knowledge takes time for someone to be able to have it. Unlike justified true belief, knowledge can be held by any amount of people, up to n.
To help set up why knowledge and justified true belief and two separate items that can be grasped, I will discuss what is commonly known among philosophers as the basic definition of knowledge and will show why each premise is necessary.
S knows p if and only if [a] p is true
[b] S believes p, and
[c] S is justified in believing p.
For premise [a], ‘p is true’ is necessary because if p wasn’t true, then knowledge can’t even be knowledge! If p wasn’t true, then people wouldn’t want it. Yes, one could be mislead on believing that p is true, but if that’s the case, I don’t feel that they wouldn’t go too far on it becoming knowledge. But back on track, if p wasn’t true, then there would be no way of going onto the second and third premise for the basic definition of knowledge.
Now onto premise [b], that ‘S believes p.’ I feel that premise [b] ties in directly with premise [a] in ways of p has to be true before S would decide to believe it. Like in premise [a], someone could be mislead on believing that p is true than believe in p, but if that’s the case, and if another moral agent is aware of it, they would correct that person and set them on the right track if they were mislead. And like I somewhat touched on, S wouldn’t believe p if S didn’t believe that p is true. So premises [a] and [b] go hand-in-hand on if one of them is accepted, then both of them are.
The last premise, premise [c] states ‘S is justified in believing p.’ To make premise [c] make sense, I’ll reword it to: ‘S is right in believing p.’ I think after changing up the wording of premise [c], if premise [a] and [b] were fulfilled, [c] would tend to follow. But to look at the premise ‘S is right in believing p’ would be true if S would believe p and p is true. And just a thought, it could be said that premise is circular to premise [b], that if S believes p then it would be justified in believing p. But in turn, for premise [c] to be fulfilled, p would have to be true and S would have to believe in p (premise [a] and [b]). With premises [a] and [b] having to be accepted before premise [c] to be accepted, it wouldn’t be circular to accept premise [c] because S would be right in believing p due to the two prior premises would make it valid.
So after looking at each premise and discussing why they are necessary for the basic (or broken down version) definition of knowledge, I do believe that they all are necessary for the definition for knowledge. The reason why I say that is because knowledge cannot stand on anything other than those three premises. If one tries to add more premises to the definition for knowledge, it would be harder and harder for one to be able to have it, and if it’s too hard to get it, then no one would want knowledge, and if you take away any of the premises, it wouldn’t be knowledge, because it could be easily changed and persuaded.
But going back to the original question, knowledge is different from justified true belief because of those three premises. Justified true belief is a belief that is true and valid. Knowledge, like already explained, is an understanding gained through observation and/or experience. Justified true belief can be held by a number of people. It’s easy to change it compared to knowledge, which I showed above. As a result, knowledge and justified true belief are two separate identities.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Luke 13:24--The Few
Luke 13:24 (New International Version)
Check out this video on youtube.com!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkLLOH7qXPg&feature=channel
The video is called "The Few - Piper/Washer/Ravenhill/Conway/Leiter"
I'm hoping to blog about this sometime soon. It's finals week this week, so time's tighter than normal. So hope you guys enjoy the video!
He said to them, 24"Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.
Check out this video on youtube.com!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkLLOH7qXPg&feature=channel
The video is called "The Few - Piper/Washer/Ravenhill/Conway/Leiter"
I'm hoping to blog about this sometime soon. It's finals week this week, so time's tighter than normal. So hope you guys enjoy the video!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)