In the Theaetetus, Plato speaks on theories of knowledge using a dialogue fashion. In his discussion, Plato concentrates on the many methods learning can be done to further exemplify the definition of knowledge. Plato includes the use of Socrates, the philosopher, Theodorus, a wise friend and a sage, Theaetetus, whom Socrates inquires with. The main question Socrates wants Theaetetus to answer and elaborate on is “what is knowledge” and is knowledge really based solely on a person’s particular perception. The three definitions that Plato focuses on is “knowledge is perception, that knowledge is true opinion or true judgment and that knowledge is true opinion with an account.”
When Socrates asks Theatetus to explain what he thinks is knowledge, he gives him an answer relative to other aspects. Socrates follows this with telling Socrates that he seeks to know “ the nature of knowledge in the abstract” for a person can only reach a definition of something by understanding the nature of it. A true definition cannot be reached by simply saying knowledge means knowledge of this and that, which is what Theatetus did when he said knowledge included “the art of the cobbler and other craftsmen.” After dialogue with Socrates, Theatetus brings the “many sorts of knowledge under one definition” by stating that knowledge is perception and can vary according to the person’s state of being. For example, if someone is sick wine will taste bitter but this differs from a healthy person’s perception of wine. However, even this can differ by someone who doesn’t like wine at all.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Plato on Knowledge in the Theaetetus".
Therefore, everything is relative and Theatetus understands that “nothing is [truly] self-existent” but everything depends upon something else. In order to gain a better understanding of Theatetus’ general definition of knowledge as perception, Socrates combines two theses: “ the interpretation of Protagoras’ doctrine as meaning “how things appear to an individual is how they are for that individual” (IEP). For Socrates, if the wind is in appearance of being cold, then it would make sense for a person to perceive the wind as truly cold.
However, this phenomenal subjectivist definition isn’t sufficient for Socrates who moves on to define knowledge as “the offspring of flux and motion” where “motion is the source of what is called being and becoming and inactivity of not-being and destruction.” Socrates believes that a body in motion stays in motion and everything else follows this same theory. While Socrates doesn’t believe it’s enough to say knowledge is only perception, he does believe that “there are no stably existing objects with stably enduring qualities.” Due to the fact that everything that can be postulated can be negated, an equally “opposite perception” can exist “with equally good credentials.” 2 Socrates believes that even in terms of gaining height, a person must lose his or her shortness to gain the subsequent height. In terms of “fast or slow,” there really is only that which is being and becoming. By being short, a person is becoming taller but, nonetheless, always experiencing a constant motion throughout the process.
When speaking on knowledge being a true opinion with an account, Socrates explains how knowing what something is involves knowing it in its fundamental form. For example, if a person believes that true knowing comes from looking through the eyes of God, then a person’s own opinions will greatly differ from God’s opinions due to their own perceptions. Thus, man cannot really be the measure of everything in this sense. While speaking with Theaetetus, Socrates notes that he was influenced by what Theodorus said and this isn’t the same as true opinion, which comes about by dialogue and thinking of what a person believes to be true. Thus, while an account might ring true for someone as knowledge, this might not be true for someone else with a different account. In this way, Socrates “shows that one can have such an account without necessarily having knowledge.” 1 This all depends on whether or not a person believes in popular notions of knowledge or seeks to dig deeper into these broad concepts to figure out that which rings true for that person, depending upon his own account; not upon that of others.
In the end, although Plato acted as a theoretical midwife for Theaetetus, the answers to “what is knowledge” were left open for more discussion and thought for Theaetutus. Plato’s dialogue with the young sage shows how the true nature of knowledge is not a black-and-white concept. There is a fine line between what knowledge is for someone and his or her counterpart. Due to the possible negation of every postulation, knowledge isn’t simply seeing something but is also relative to who is seeing it and in what state that person is. Also, knowledge cannot be acquired by simply taking someone else’s word for something, even if this person appears to have “high credentials.” For Socrates, knowledge can be attained without these credentials by listening to different accounts and deciding for oneself what is perceived by the particular person to ring true for them. If a person feels a sense of wonder when listening to a particular fact or account, measures must be taken to understand that sense of wonder in order to come up with a viable, personal account of what knowledge will be taken to be true.
- From “Plato’s Theaetetus” by William A. Welton, Copyright 2014. Supplementary reading obtained from http://kentzendo.org/welton/TheaetetusTP1.html
- From “Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource. Supplementary reading obtained from http://www.iep.utm.edu/theatetu/#SH3b
- From “ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.” Plato on Knowledge in the Theaetetus. 2013. Supplementary reading obtained from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-theaetetus/#SumDia
