The branch of philosophy that concerns itself with theories of knowledge and justification, more formally known as epistemology, was the impetus of my plummet into the dark abyss of skepticism, the depths of which left me with nobody but myself to ruminate the things I once was thoroughly fond of — the things I thought I knew.

Okay, I was being a bit hyperbolic with the whole plummeting into an abyss thing, but epistemology did leave me questioning my own claims to knowledge and others’ claims as well.

Everyone, at least at some point, naturally believes that he or she knows something, or in cases of immodesty, everything. Why shouldn’t they? It seems self-undermining to think that beliefs or claims that you and I maintain are not instances of knowledge — that they are not true. The common conception of knowledge that was held for a long time, which was overthrown by the popular Gettier Cases in philosophy, was that an instance of knowledge must be a justified, true belief. Gettier Cases aside, let’s assume that knowledge is justified, true belief.

For one, I must be able to justify my claim. I simply have to dish out a few good reasons for the knowledge I claim to have and defend my position against criticism. Easy enough, right? Secondly, I must maintain a belief in what I’m claiming as knowledge. Sounds pretty self-evident to me, doesn’t it? After all, why wouldn't I believe what I claim to know? Lastly, the knowledge that I have must be true. Wait...what? Isn’t knowledge synonymous with truth? In other words, isn’t knowledge something that is by definition true? So, what’s the next step? Well, like any good thing in philosophy, we are left with trying to give form to or define another element. So what is truth?

To do justice and provide you with a full account of what concerns philosophers on the topic of truth would leave me in the precarious position of writing voluminous papers and books--an intrepid feat few men are willing to attempt. What I am willing to do, however, is introduce you to two of the more popular theories of truth that I am acquainted with.

The first is the correspondence theory of truth. This theory states, roughly, that for a belief or statement to be true, it must correspond in some way to reality. In other words, if I am to have a true belief about the existence of fire-breathing dragons, there must actually be fire-breathing dragons existing in the world. This theory probably aligns with what most people think about their beliefs--that they actually do correspond to reality. This theory, however, leaves one in the daunting position to prove the existence of an external reality--a topic better suited for another time.

The second is the coherence theory of truth. This theory contends that a belief or statement is true if it fits in well with one's entire system, or systems, of belief. For instance, if invisible bearded gnomes fits in well, or doesn't contradict, with my view on gravity, then it has some element of truth in it. This doctrine seems suspicious to me, however, because it limits truth to a purely intellectual game or activity and can be used to show that just about anything is true.

If either of the two aforementioned theories appeal to you, it might be of interest to do some research yourself, if you feel you want to adequately defend what you know. The reason why I think this topic is important, as I have observed, is that not very many people can give a clear explanation of what knowledge is. If a claimer of knowledge cannot define knowledge, then how can they say they possess it? I, myself, have found it easier for the time being to suspend judgment and admit, as Socrates did, that "true knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."