According to the JTB theory of knowledge, I know P if:

  1. P is true.
  2. I believe P.
  3. I am justified in believing P.

Consider the proposition P: "Vanilla ice-cream tastes nice."

If I know P, then by 1., P is true. But someone else might know ¬P, and so by 1., ¬P is true.

Do philosophers categorise different kinds of propositional knowledge? Is there "subjective knowledge" and "objective knowledge"?

  • 1
    Hi, welcome to philosophy SE. These issues are so extensively discussed that your question is too broad, I am afraid. Reading Analysis of Knowledge article on SEP may help you make it more specific. – Conifold Mar 9 '17 at 0:59

If you rephrased the proposition to "vanilla ice-cream tastes nice to me" it would leave you less vulnerable to skepticism.

When we use the words "vanilla ice cream is nice" most people are expressing the sentiment "I think that vanilla ice-cream is nice", though the words themselves don't make that clear.

Tastes nice" really denotes a binary relationship, a thing cannot taste nice independently, it requires a thing to do the tasting. Therefore that statement can only ever be true or false in relation to a perceiver of the taste.

Whether we can have objective knowledge of matters of taste is a contested subject in the field of aesthetics. David Hume suggests that it is, and puts forward a theory in Of the Standard of Taste that addresses the inconsistency in us stating that taste is entirely subjective yet still knowing deep down that Justin Bieber is an inferior musician to Bob Dylan. (Or any other musician in the history of civilisation).

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.