#o6. THE TRiPARTiTE THE0Ry 0F KN0WLEDGE

PLAT0S DEFINITION OF KN0WLEDGE ;
   -' True belief with a logos' , a ' rational account' also known as a 'justified true belief'.

Plato's definition of knowledge is broken down into this concept; which consists of 3 points.
- there has to be a person to believe in something, let us say that this person believes in a table , then there has to be a justifiable reason for that person to believe that there is a table. This is known as the tripartite theory of knowledge.

Many questions can then arise from this theory, for example; what would be considered a 'justifiable reason' to believe in something? What some individuals view as justifiable could be completely different from what others could consider justifiable

For example, A justifiable reason for some to believe that there is a table, is that they can see it and touch it. for others, this reason would not suffice.

Just as Gettier presents in his short work, where he provides possible contradictions for this theory ; using the example of where somebody is so certain about something, they believe they are right and have reason to justify their beliefs, they can still end up wrong.

In the readings, it mentions a fourth condition to improve this theory. This fourth condition includes the concept of knowledge being 'indefeasible' which means that there should be no prior knowledge of anything else that might change somebodies perception of what they believe is happening.

So what is knowledge? How can we really define what knowledge is, when every persons beliefs and reality is different? Bringing in the concept that knowledge has to be indefeasible, wouldn't that mean that not person is knowledgeable since nobody really knows EVERYTHING?

# 19. THE G0LDEN RULE.

During many occasions in ones life, we have heard the infamous phrase;


'DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU.' -Jesus c.3o AD


Phrases such as this one, which we have heard time and time again, eventually begin to loose their meaning. But what does the Golden Rule actually mean? Reading this article made me realize that the way people perceive things does in fact change the meaning and context of whatever it is that they are analyzing. For example, The reading goes on to tell us how when one looks at the golden rule too specifically it can in fact change the meaning of the phrase in whole. What one person can consider respect, kindness, and understanding can be completely different from the perception that someone else has on these things. 

The difference between right & wrong can be completely different to every single individual. As the book commented, it is better to look at the Golden Rule as a form of fairness and consistency with the way you treat people, rather than to try to look at it too specifically and not understand the universal meaning behind the idea of The Golden Rule. For instance, if a murderer decides to look at the idea of the Golden Rule too literally, He must expect to at one point also be in jeopardy of being the one on the other end of the murder. For this reason, the Golden Rule must not be looked at as a sort of literal concept but more of an idea used to regulate morals and ethics of individuals. 

However, when thinking about the other side to this coin we can figure that many people do express acts of kindness in hope that they will in return be treated with the same respect. So we ask ourselves? At one point should the Golden Rule stop being a universal rule? and start being literal? 

"WHAT YOU DO NOT WISH FOR YOURSELF, DO NOT DO TO OTHERS... AS YOU YOURSELF DESIRE STANDING, THEN HELP OTHERS ACHIEVE IT; AS YOU YOURSELF DESIRE SUCCESS, THEN HELP OTHERS ATTAIN IT." -CONFUCIUS,  c. 5oo BC