Platos Theory of Knowledge - Term Paper Example

? Plato’s Theory of Knowledge Introduction Philosophers have been looking for the definitionof knowledge since forever. It was around 400 B.C. when Plato, a philosopher of western thinking decided to tackle this issue and he brought up his own philosophy. Plato’s philosophy suggests that Justified True Belief is necessary if there has to be knowledge. Plato felt that all these words are important if knowledge exists. Socrates has talked about several theories regarding knowledge in Plato’s dialogues. One such is the Meno, and another more particular one is Theaetetus wherein Socrates talks about knowledge. The final theory that he arrived at was that knowledge is true belief which has been “given an account of” – which means some kind of an explanation of definition has been provided of it. The theory of knowledge being justified true belief says that if one is to know that some scheme is indeed correct, the person should not just simply think it to be true but he should be having a logical excuse for that. One effect resulting from such an idea is that one would not be gaining knowledge simply because he believes something that was true. Platonic Version Plato’s theory of knowledge has been given in Theaetetus and it proves to be a substitute to the theory that Protagoras had proposed. Plato’s theory depicts reality to be the standard and belief and perception can be measured against it. It is how we perceive reality that leads to the creation of belief. One thing to consider here, before moving ahead, is that Plato’s theory of knowledge happens to be a theory of error as well as there is always a possibility of misperceiving reality and leading to an incorrect belief. Another thing is that there is no similarity between true belief and knowledge, although there could be a true belief merely through luck. For there to be an honest and actual knowledge of reality there is a requirement of there being a correct belief as well as enough proof for that belief. Plato has acknowledged that justification and belief do not have any real relation with each other. There cannot be any perfect way of making sure that the proof we have is enough. The history of philosophy has divulged several struggles undertaken for the correction of this absence. Scientific method is a system of building evidence by testing belief against observation (perception).  This was the account of Plato. Protagorean relativism says: Of all things the measure is Man, of the things that are, that they are, and of the things that are not, that they are not (Lloyd and Pellegrin 204) According to Plato a theory by Protagoras was the basis of this statement and it considers that knowledge and perception are one and same (Schmitt 11). Plato pointed out that the implication drawn from this statement is that there is no difference between appearance and truth and a person can never say what he knows is wrong. As a metaphor, someone healthy and fine would find a wine to be sweet but the same person, when unwell, might find the very same wine to taste bitter. The truth of the matter is that the wine is not sweet of bitter in itself; the taste arises just when the person perceives it to be such and such due to certain circumstances. Actually, there is no permanent, immortal, truth at all. The reality comes into being and forms into objects and features when the person acts on it after having perceived it. There is a notion of our minds creating our own reality. This idea is quite popular in the current world and literature and besides this even in the modern accounts of constructivist educational theory. Knowledge as Perception If we bring out a comparison between this concept of knowledge and the one that Plato suggested through his theory we would find them to be extremely different; in fact, they are opposing each other in many ways. Protagorean theory is known as Relativism due to the fact that knowledge and being itself holds its dependency on relations that exist among the perceiver and the perceived. The resulting suggestions are pretty shocking if such is how the things are. And Plato has drawn out several of the mentioned suggestions in his attempt at advancing his criticism regarding relativism. It was the belief of the Sophists that what a person can perceive to be true is actually true. That means if a person looks at a building from far away he will perceive it to be small. However, when he comes nearer to it the real size of the building is in front of him. This means what he had initially perceived was not true, thus it could not be knowledge which relates to the fact that reality has no relation to what a person’s mind perceives. If two perceptions are absolutely correct then an animal should perceive in the same way as does a man, or a student should look at a problem just like his teacher would. This concept also reflects the statement that whatever one thinks would be true and if that is the case if someone refutes this concept it has to be true since he is thinking about it. This concept could be totally refuted on the basis that one person’s perception could be similar or totally different from that of another. If two people’s perceptions do not match how is it possible for something to be true when the other person considers it false? Thus, there is no real truth that could be called universal. Perception, therefore, cannot be termed as knowledge. Knowledge vs. Belief For understanding the idea that Plato had regarding knowledge it is important to first properly distinguish between knowledge and belief. It is understandable that there is no comparison between an opinion and knowledge; however, such is not the case with belief. A belief is, in effect, very much similar to an opinion. It is not always necessary that the opinion that someone holds has actually been formed after having researched some facts. One can believe that the earth makes revolutions around the moon, or that there is indeed a Santa Claus who drops presents to well behaving children on Christmas night. In fact, one may even consider these to be actual facts. However, till he can actually give a proof for such “facts” these will remain his opinion or belief and cannot be termed as knowledge. Someone having knowledge regarding something can back up his belief if he provides a justification, or some kind of an explanation for it. It is only when the opinion or belief has been secured by a proper, logical account and when it can be explained why it is correct, that it can be termed as knowledge (Cottingham 11). Through his theory that clearly differentiated knowledge and belief as being opposite states of mind, Plato’s argument was that belief cannot define knowledge. He felt that the relationship between man and nature is in a constant flux and thus it was his belief that everything is relative, there is no permanency in anything. His reasoning was that knowledge is relative to changing facts. Everything is relative unless one’s mind is enlightened to the degree that it ascends from specific objects or ideas that are grasped by the sense to universal truths that do not change. Thus, only through enlightenment can one grasp the universal truth (Fannin 47) Basically, the definition of beliefs can be the assumptions that we form regarding the surroundings we live in and what we see and hear each day. The truth of the matter is that a belief, which might be true, still cannot be termed as knowledge just because it is a fact. True Belief Although the explanation given of belief and knowledge defines the two as separate entities, from the Platonian viewpoint it is not such that one can be present in the absence of the other. For instance, we all know that one and one makes two. However, if someone just says that he knows this is a fact but he does not believe it, it would not make any sense whatsoever. Plato’s theory suggests that there is an inherent implication of belief by knowledge. Just like there should be belief for there to be knowledge, the belief also has to be true and not just simply be there for the sake of it. Knowing something false does not make sense. Continuing with the example discussed before, one plus one makes two and not one person would say that they know it to make six since they do not have any kind of a proof that would verify it. That could mean that belief actually should be justifiable. If a person believes in something he should be having a justification behind considering it to be true. He has to have a proper logical reason for believing in something and not just hold a belief for the sake of it, or because someone else does. Justification Plato termed justification to be the last aspect of knowledge. He said that in the absence of justification there is nothing there besides plain opinion. Plato has termed this as a “tether” and to describe it he had used the analogy of statues which could escape unless they are tied (Schmitt 1). Although this is a pretty weird example, through this Plato was actually suggesting that a person’s opinion is not forever; it keeps changing with circumstances. Belief is a state of mind, and it tends to change with time. Although there have been a lot of differences among epistemologists and philosophers regarding the concern of justification, they do unite at one point. This point is that no matter what justification really is, or how it is related to knowledge, if justification does exist it is different from knowledge. More particularly, there exist justified beliefs which do not add up to knowledge in spite of all the examples of knowledge being examples of justified belief (Sutton 1). Beliefs are a result of justification. Beliefs can only exist in the presence of logical justifications. This means that if a person believes in something he would definitely be having some kind of a justifiable reason or excuse for that which would prove to be the evidence of his belief. Justification is the reason a belief is called true. It is an explanation for the existence of a belief. When a belief has a justification it becomes knowledge because that would result in it being true. Genuine inquiry brings about the issue of doubt at all times and to prevent that justification is used. Fallibilism or Skepticism? The view of knowledge being termed as justified true belief has actually been refuted at times. One such disfavor was from the side of (Lewis) who observed that if this point is considered then there would be a requirement of there being a totally impossible option between fallibilism and skepticism, the former he used in conjunction with a rock and the latter with a whirlpool; and that there is a possibility of getting out of both the situations if we judge carefully. (Gettier) has also objected to the traditional definition of knowledge. A shortened version of the example he gave relates that Boris and Vladimir had proposed Olga for marriage, a very beautiful young lady. She was very happy with Vladimir’s proposal but did not care for Boris. Boris thought this was very obvious because he was a poor man while Vladimir was wealthy. Boris felt that from what he knew of the world and how thinks and people work, Olga would marry money. When Olga accepts his proposal his belief is proven to be correct and she does that because Boris had inherited a lot of fortune after his uncle died and no one knew about that. Through this incident, however, can it be said that Boris was aware of the future and actually knew that Olga would end up marrying a wealthy person? Works Cited Cottingham, John. Western philosophy: an anthology. John Wiley & Sons, 1996. Fannin, Kerby F. While Men Slept... : A Biblical and Historical Account of the New Universal Christianity. Life's Resources Inc., 2002. Gettier, P. "Is justified true belief knowledge?" Analysis 23 (1963): 121–123. Lewis, David. "Elusive knowledge." Australian Journal of Philosophy 74 (1996): 549–567. Lloyd, Geoffrey Ernest Richard and Pierre Pellegrin. A guide to Greek thought. Harvard University Press, 2003. Schmitt, Frederick F. Knowledge and Belief. Routledge, 1992. Sutton, Jonathan. Without justification. MIT Press, 2007. Read More