Platos Theory of Knowledge - Essay Example

Running head: Plato's theory of knowledge Describe the distinctive theses that Plato believes entails theaetetus theory that perception equates with knowledge. Name: University: Student's Ref: Introduction: Plato's works take the form of dialogues, which are recorded as early dialogues, and later dialogues. They represent the progression of Plato's own philosophy. In the early dialogues Socrates was always the main character and is seen to represent Plato's own sentiments. Plato was dedicating his writings to someone he had great respect for. His later works do not always feature Socrates though often this was the case. In analyzing Plato's theory of knowledge it is necessary to talk about the myth of the platonic cave. The theory rests in the myth that describes people chained within a cave. The only images they see are the shadows of objects and animals held in front of a fire that is behind them that reflects on the cave walls in front of them. That is all they had ever seen so that is what they believe to be real. One day a man escaped the cave and went outside. With the sun he saw what was real in the world and realized all he ever saw were just shadows. He went back to the men in the cave and told them all this. He told them that they too could see the outside if they broke free of their chains but they didn't believe him. The environment of the cave to Plato symbolizes the physical world of appearances. Escaping into the sun-filled world means the transition into the real world that is full and perfect. A world where things are not viewed only in a material sense. It is here that the whole of Plato's philosophy is summed up. Plato's theory of knowledge is devoted to definitions of science and knowledge. Developing the argument from the lower consciousness to the higher consciousness, in which perception, opinion, reasoning are closely examined. Cornford F.M in his interpretations "Plato's Theory of Knowledge", the phrase "degrees of reality" is found in many commentaries to describe the aforementioned hierarchy. Vlastos' "A Metaphysical Paradox" and "Degrees of Reality in Plato." Cornford describes this as "a distinct order of realities." Plato's ethical theory rests on the assumption that virtue is knowledge and can be taught, which has to be understood in terms of his theory of Forms. One of his famous arguments is that to "know the good is to do the good". Being the world of forms, which is the proper object of knowledge. Of interest to our discussion is his later work that features Socrates and his pupil theaetetus in a dialogue named after the latter. Theaetetus is introduced to us as a valiant and a hero of the battle of Corinth and of the dialogue. He is a disciple of Theodorus, a reputed geometrician, whose specialization is thus indicated to be the propaedeutic to philosophy. Theaetetus is introduced as wounded and also as having several similarities with Socrates, same contrast sharp mind and the unattractive features. Theodorus presents the younger man as courageous, intelligent and selfless. These qualities are seen as dialogue heats up.. Socrates is impressed by these credentials and invites theaetetus in a witty discussion on different issues. After overcoming the initial sense of wonder, he rises to the occasion, and begins to follow the flow of the discussion eventually he's able to comprehend the consequences of his own answers. The question about the "nature of knowledge" opens his mind and encourages him to think not only in a mathematical sense which he is used to but also in metaphysical sense. Eventually it dawns on him that "there are universal conceptions of being, likeness, sameness, number, which the mind contemplates in her." In the dialogues Plato devotes himself to coining definitions of knowledge, conception, science and the like but at the same time tearing down the same definitions in an attempt to invoke in the mind of the student a desperation that will cause critical thinking. In the first part when asked his opinion on what knowledge is, Theaetetus answers by giving a number of examples of knowledge. He probably viewed these as various divisions of knowledge, but Socrates quickly shoots down the definition with an argument that only one quality found in all forms of knowledge was needed. Again like the expert man-midwife he was reputed to be, he helps theaetetus to realize that one will not know that cobbling is the knowledge of shoemaking before they understand what knowledge is. Theaetetus therefore gets to understand Socrates' question and that the nature of definition of knowledge has to be ascertained before stating the specifics of knowledge. It is then proven that was not the true definition of knowledge. Socrates encourages the younger man to try another definition. Below are some excerpts from the 'Republic' as translated by D. Lee. SOCRATES: Do you hear, Theaetetus what Theodorus says The philosopher, whom you would not like to disobey, and whose word ought to be a command to a young man, bids me interrogate you. Take courage, then, and nobly say what you think that knowledge is. THEAETETUS: Well, Socrates, I will answer as you and he bid me; and if I make a mistake, you will doubtless correct me. SOCRATES: We will, if we can. THEAETETUS: Then, I think that the sciences which I learn from Theodorus-- geometry, and those which you just now mentioned--are knowledge; and I would include the art of the cobbler and other craftsmen; these, each and all of, them, are knowledge. SOCRATES: Too much Theaetetus, too much; the nobility and liberality of your nature make you give many and diverse things, when I am asking for one simple thing. THEAETETUS: What do you mean, Socrates SOCRATES: Perhaps nothing. I will endeavor, however, to explain what I believe to be my meaning: When you speak of cobbling, you mean the art or science of making shoes THEAETETUS: Just so. SOCRATES: And when you speak of carpentering, you mean the art of making wooden implements THEAETETUS: I do. SOCRATES: In both cases you define the subject matter of each of the two arts THEAETETUS: True. SOCRATES: But that, Theaetetus , was not the point of my question: we wanted to know not the subjects, nor yet the number of the arts or sciences, for we were not going to count them, but we wanted to know the nature of knowledge in the abstract. Am I not right THEAETETUS: Perfectly right. SOCRATES: Let me offer an illustration: Suppose that a person were to ask about some very trivial and obvious thing--for example, what is clay And we were to reply, that there is clay of potters, there is clay of oven- makers, there is clay of brick-makers; would not the answer be ridiculous THEAETETUS: Truly. SOCRATES: In the first place, there would be an absurdity in assuming that he who asked the question would understand from our answer the nature of 'clay,' merely because we added 'of the image-makers,' or of any other workers. How can a man understand the name of anything, when he does not know the nature of it THEAETETUS: He cannot. SOCRATES: Then he who does not know what science or knowledge is, has no knowledge of the art or science of making shoes THEAETETUS: None. SOCRATES: Nor of any other science THEAETETUS: No. SOCRATES: And when a man is asked what science or knowledge is, to give in answer the name of some art or science is ridiculous; for the question is, 'What is knowledge' and he replies, 'A knowledge of this or that.' THEAETETUS: True. SOCRATES: Moreover, he might answer shortly and simply, but he makes an enormous circuit. For example, when asked about the clay, he might have said simply, that clay is moistened earth--what sort of clay is not to the point. THEAETETUS: Yes, Socrates, there is no difficulty as you put the question. Theaetetus , encouraged by Socrates offers the definition that Knowledge is perception. At this juncture theaetetus hints that metaphysical thinking is not entirely new to him. Socrates quickly translates this to protagoras' homo-mensura doctrine, which claims that "Man is the measure of all things" Theaetetus having read the 'protagoras' assumes that general definition as unquestionable. Socrates embarks on his mission of interpreting the doctrines. If for example "the wind appears cold for X then X perceives the wind as cold". Socrates wishes to build a foundation for his argument and brings up the Heracleitus thesis of radical flux, which he attributes to Protagoras as his private doctrine. Take a case of the visual perception of whiteness, this can be seen as the product of interaction between the perceiver's eyes and the object's whiteness. This is later explained with a metaphor of the perceiver (subject) and the perceived (object) as parents giving birth to twins, the objects whiteness and the subject's perception of it. The argument thus follows that two perceptions can never be in conflict with one another and that one person cannot refute another's perceptual conclusions. THEAETETUS: At any rate, Socrates, after such an exhortation I should be ashamed of not trying to do my best. Now he who knows perceives what he knows, and, as far as I can see at present, knowledge is perception. SOCRATES: Bravely said, boy; that is the way in which you should express your opinion. And now, let us examine together this conception of yours, and see whether it is a true birth or a mere wind-egg: --You say that knowledge is perception THEAETETUS: Yes. SOCRATES: Well, you have delivered yourself of a very important doctrine about knowledge; it is indeed the opinion of Protagoras, who has another way of expressing it. Man, he says, is the measure of all things, of the existence of things that are, and of the non-existence of things that are not: --You have read him However this contact between protagoras and heracleitus theory is not to last long. Protagoras is compelled to defend his thesis and reply that perception is true all the time, a reply that is found to be inconsistent with Heraclitean thesis. It therefore becomes necessary to go back and ask again what is knowledge. Socrates poses the question again to theaetetus who replies that Knowledge is true opinion. It again raises the question of whether opinion can be falsified. It has been observed that plato in his works was not keen on unraveling the entire subject of knowledge since time and again he has rejected arguments that have real elements of truth in them. In his criticism of Protagoras he ignores the sensible argument possibly advancing his own opinion, which has its own weaknesses. In the theory of knowledge Plato wishes to demonstrate we do not learn, but rather that learning involves awakening our consciousness to that which is brought to our attention or that which we are not aware. He argues that we have "inbuilt" knowledge that comes with everybody. He proves by asking a slave boy different geometry questions which he answers well demonstrating that he knows geometry though he'd had no formal schooling on the subject. Socrates concludes then that the knowledge was always with the slave boy and was recollected. Conclusion: The inclusion of Protagorean doctrine to Theaetetus' definition requires the inculcation of the theory of Perceptual Relativism-which explains Socrates' focus on the dynamics of perception. It is worthy to note that the man-as-measure theory is broader and requires deeper consideration because it encompasses deductions concerning values, such as "the just" and "the good," and not just narrow views. Socrates criticizes Protagoras, interpretations starting with-moral and epistemological-dimensions, and finally its narrow, perceptual aspects. Plato, in his Theaetetus, gathers philosophy of his day and tries to make a comparison without reconstructing the theory of knowledge out of them. This perhaps is what has contributed to the fascination that students of classical works have with his Plato's works. He has ventured into of mythological philosophy, and pointed out the similarities of opposing thoughts in the minds of men allowing each to be thoroughly examined. REFERENCE Cornford, F.M. -Plato's Theory of Knowledge, published by Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1935 (paperback 1960). Republic Translated by D.Lee (second edition), published by Penguin Books, London 1955 (1987 printing). Read More