In this thesis I scavenge the history of philosophy for answers to the question ‘How are claims to knowledge justified?’. I argue that Plato’s psychological doctrine of knowledge marks the starting point of a philosophical inquiry motivated by the possibility to discover foundations of knowledge through investigating the nature of mind. At the core of this inquiry lies the hypothesis that if the psychological mechanisms that govern the capacity for knowledge acquisition is fully understood, then answers will follow about why judgements are true or false. The prospective result of the inquiry is a theory of universal epistemic justification which demarcates epistemically warranted beliefs from unwarranted beliefs. I suggest that there is a historically persistent case of cognitive dissonance within the epistemological enterprise — a tension between two of its central theses — which is caused by the persistence of the of the hitherto unsuccessful but ongoing quest for universal epistemic justification, and its inciting promises. The contradicting theses are those of certain justification (that one is justified in believing that p only if p is entailed by evidence) and proportional justification (that one is proportionally justified in believing that p to the extent that evidence makes p credible). I discuss the consequences of giving up one of the respective theses. I conclude that the thesis of certain justification cannot be given up unless an adequate theory of proportional justification is proposed, and that the legacy of searching for universal epistemic justification will continue unless epistemologists are able to construct one.

This paper is written in special acknowledgement and recognition of oppressed minority groups including, but not limited to, those of Black, Indigenous, and Asian persons. All lives do not matter until Black, Red, and Yellow lives matter. / Obama once spoke of his desire to see empathetic individuals appointed to the position of Supreme Court Justice of the United States. His desire was met by many with resistance as people voiced concerns regarding the unreliability of beliefs founded on empathy and possible negative consequences that may come about. Concerns regarding unreliability are the product of our inability to access the ‘privileged information’ or the actual thoughts and perspectives of those we intend to empathize with. Attempts to form empathic beliefs, in the absence of this information, could lead to various harms to the very groups we intend to empathize with. Stereotyping, bias, and claims of sincerely ‘knowing’ the unique circumstances of those very different from ourselves can all lead to the justification of actions with harmful consequences. In my thesis I wish to address these concerns by acknowledging that most practical sources of knowledge (those we make use of and depend on regularly), such as those predicated on notions of cause and effect, have similar risks associated with them. Theories such as gravity and evolution remain theories and yet via the establishment of best practices and diligent communities, we are able to minimize the dissemination of false knowledge claims and their respective harms. In my paper I acknowledge this and explain how empathy can be dealt with in a similar fashion, while also reducing potential harms to others and allowing us to take advantage of the many benefits empathic knowledge has to offer. In the same way that we still continue to make use of our understanding of gravity to improve our lives and society by building aircrafts, we can make use of empathy to improve the ability of individual social and moral agents, as well as society as a whole. Under this pragmatic approach even the legal system can reap the benefits of empathic knowledge claims, so long as we, moving forward, work to collectively discern how to best ensure the validity of empathic knowledge claims. / Thesis / Master of Philosophy (MA) / Obama once spoke of his desire to see empathetic individuals appointed to the position of Supreme Court Justices of the United States. His desire was met by many with resistance as people voiced concerns regarding the unreliability of beliefs founded on empathy and possible negative consequences that may come about. In my thesis I wish to address these concerns by acknowledging that most useful sources of knowledge have similar risks associated with them, and yet via the establishment of best practices and diligent communities we are able to minimize the dissemination of false knowledge claims and their respective harms. In my paper I acknowledge this and explain how empathy can be dealt with in a similar fashion, while also reducing potential harms to others and allowing us to take advantage of the many benefits empathic knowledge has to offer.