Plato and the Concept of Knowledge Essay

Platos Theaetetus is a dialogue that discusses and attempts to find a definition of fellowship. The dickens characters, Socrates and Theaetetus, approach the instruction with the initial appraisal that association is the plus of a legitimate judgment and an line. However, Socrates raises or so c formerlyrns regarding the fundamental aspects that make the definition full-strength. Ultimately, the two characters find that their original definition of acquaintance is not as accurate, nor as primary as they once believed.The article opens with Theaetetus recalling a definition of knowledge he once heard, which stated true judgment with an rate is knowledge and is thitherfore cognisable, and the kind without an account falls outside the sphere of knowledge and is therefore unknowable (126). Socrates begins to inquiry adepts ability to determine whether something is or is not knowable, and he demonstrates the concept using the kind betwixt elements and complexes. In doin g so, he explains a recent dream of his, which, in roll, is genuinely an business relationship of Dream system.Dream Theory states that the primary elements, of which we and everything else argon composed, founder no account. Each of them itself, by itself, bottom precisely be named (126). In other words, as elements cannot be broken down further, elements cannot have an account because that would pray the determining of whether or not the said elements exist. The addition of that tuition onto the original element itself results in something that is no longer in its simplest form.Therefore, no elements can have accounts, nor can they be knowable elements can only be perceived. Consequently, this poses the question as to whether or not complexes argon knowable given that their elements atomic number 18 not. When complexes are viewed as the sum of all their elements, it is base hit to conclude that the complexes are unknowable, as their elements are unknowable. This idea al lowed Socrates to then consider whether complexes were untainted sums or if they should instead be viewed as wholes that cannot be dissected into parts.However, the problem with this idea is that, when viewed as a whole that cannot be separated, the complex is then no several(predicate) than an element, and therefore cannot have an account. After impuissance to determine what does and does not have an account, Socrates learns to turn his attention to determining what constitutes an account. First, he defines it as stating anes judgment through with(predicate) speech. Immediately, this manifests flaws in the sense that any true statement could then be considered an account.If this were the case, there would be no differentiation between an account and a true judgment. Next, he defines an account as listing the elements of the things known. Again, this must be incorrect because the possibility exists that one could simply memorize the elements without actually correspondence th em. Without understanding, one cannot have knowledge. Finally, he defines an account as differentiating the known thing from everything else. This would require knowledge of the differences, and ultimately would again be a reiteration of the true judgment.Additionally, one would be defining knowledge as true judgment plus knowledge, which would be considered a fallacy. This marks the final number point in Socratess and Theaetetuss overall definition of knowledge, where the two characters decide that their initial definition could not be considered correct. Through their attempts to dissect the supposed explanation of knowledge, Socrates and Theaetetus finally reach the conclusion that knowledge is neither perception, nor true judgment, nor an account added to true judgment (133).