Traditional Analysis of Knowledge

It seems like I understand each thing as I go but it doesn’t come all together for me.  The ‘Traditional Analysis of Knowledge’ assumes that the Standard View is correct.  This is given that my understanding of the standard view is accurate and this is not yet decided in my mind.  “The Standard View says that we do have knowledge, but what is knowledge?” (p.8)

    The text mentions ‘some main kinds of knowledge’.  I do not believe it actually defines it.  Could it be because the definition is too subjective to reference textually?  I will divide knowledge into two things.  The kind of knowledge we pursue and the kind that comes to us casually through the grace of ’something’ with examples that portray my understanding of each. (Please correct me if I’m wrong).  It is also given that the knowledge that we have is true, because if it’s not then it is not knowledge (right?). Can the idea knowledge be compared with the idea of beauty? Is it only true if it remains constant forever?

    In going over the kinds of knowledge that the text mentions (pgs 8-9), I understand it as follows:
Knowing an individual: This is casual knowledge, not the kind one usually pursues, but just happens. We can’t really take credit for it, can’t brag about it (unless it’s someone famous and you somehow have earned the right to meet that person through personal merit).

Knowing who: This in can be the type of knowledge we pursue, but it can also be casual. For example, for a few months I knew who Dr. McDermitt was.  I had heard of him through other professor’s in the department as well as from other students.  I had also had some contact with him through email.  That is how I knew who Dr. McDermitt was.  It is not the same as saying: ‘I know who Jaewong Kim is.  This is not normally something that the average person will know.  Who is that anyway?  Well, I know because I took a class in philosophy of mind and he happened to be the author of the assigned text. I later found through various readings and conversations that he was a respectful scholar in the field surprisingly referred to as one of the philosophers of mind.  That kind of knowledge is not usually casual (again, though it could be).  I pursued that knowledge by becoming a philosophy major, which is actually a self-indulgent choice I made one random day of my life so it is officially something I pursued. If that hadn’t been the case I probably still wouldn’t know who Kim is.

Knowing whether: This is very similar to the previous kind of knowledge. The only difference being that ‘knowing who’ refers to a person and ‘knowing whether’ refers to a thing, fact, occurrence, or even opinion.
Knowing when: This one is trickier than the previous ones.  The trick is whether one is referring to the past, present or future.  It is also subject to verification.  I can make the claim that I know when Christopher Columbus set foot in America.   This could be verified and one could find out when Columbus actually set foot here and see if that matches with what I said.  If it does then it is knowledge.  This is talking about the past.  If I am making reference to knowing when x and y, is there really reference to the present?  Is there a limitation to only past and future in this kind of knowledge?  Talking about the future is probably the most subjective of all.  If I say that I have knowledge of exactly when I am going to graduate, and that is May, 2011,  I am holding myself subject to all the events that are to occur from this moment until then.  My knowledge would be true given that I pass all my current classes, that I can make the times for the ones that are missing and that I pass those as well, etc. The list can go on forever.  When such knowledge is so subjective, does it even deserve to be called knowledge?  If knowledge was a person, and that person was me, I would not like for such subjective concept to carry my name.

Knowing how: I will not refer to this like the text did.  The text says ‘J.D. Salinger knows how to write”.  I will only be talking on my behalf. I will not be the judge of anyone else’s knowledge, no matter how much they have proved to have it. Remember knowledge is subjective, because it is true today doesn’t guarantee it will remain true tomorrow, and if it is not constant or remains true forever it may not be ‘real’ knowledge.  There is a big difference between knowing how to do something and knowing how something is done.  I can drive a manual transmission car in theory.  I can be the perfect verbal teacher of driving stick-shift.  I have been in the passenger seat instructing someone how to do it and they have done it well. When it comes to me actually doing it the car stalls.  So do I really know how to drive stick-shift? How can this kind of knowledge be described or defined?

Knowing facts: I think this kind of knowledge is very similar to ‘knowing when’ because it is very subject to verification.  This automatically makes me think of definition or something that can be looked up somewhere. This kind of knowledge is pursued.  It’s true that many facts that we do know have been taught to us, but it has been our choice to keep them in our heads and regard to them as knowledge.  They are subject to verification.  In this case if one claims to have knowledge about something, is it likely to be true? Do we fake knowledge?  Facts that we can verify are the most believable kind of knowledge.  All the conditions that I mentioned in the above kinds of knowledge probably apply to this one. Knowing facts is as vague as putting all of them together in one single category.