Based on the lectures and Nagels book chapter, explain in your own words:
(i) Why does knowledge need to be (at a minimum) justified true belief, and not simply true belief? (ii) What is the Gettier argument that shows that justified true belief is not an adequate definition of knowledge? (iii) Explain one attempt to overcome the Gettier argument, and the main objection to that attempt.
Note 1: do not cite the lectures or the lecture slides / mind map. Instead, cite
the relevant part of the assigned readings, or some secondary literature.
