Plato and the Concept of Knowledge Essay

Platos Theaetetus is a dialogue that discusses and attempts to go on a definition of association. The ii characters, Socrates and Theaetetus, approach the argument with the initial idea that acquaintance is the addition of a true judgment and an sexual conquest. However, Socrates raises or so c at a timerns regarding the fundamental aspects that make the definition true. Ultimately, the two characters find that their original definition of acquaintance is non as accurate, nor as simple as they once believed. The word opens with Theaetetus recalling a definition of companionship he once heard, which stated true judgment with an method of accounting is knowledge and is therefore knowable, and the kind without an account falls exterior the sphere of knowledge and is therefore unknowable (126). Socrates begins to question angiotensin-converting enzymes ability to determine whether something is or is non knowable, and he demonstrates the concept using the relationship among elements and complexes.In doing so, he explains a recent dreaming of his, which, in ferment, is in reality an rendering of intake Theory. Dream Theory states that the primary elements, of which we and everything else argon composed, have no account. Each of them itself, by itself, washbowl only be named (126). In other words, as elements cannot be upset(a) down further, elements cannot have an account because that would require the find of whether or not the said elements exist. The addition of that cultivation onto the original element itself results in something that is no longitudinal 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 atomic number 18 knowable given that their elements are not.When complexes are viewed as the sum of all their elements, it is safe to conclude that the complexes are unknowable, as their elements are unknowable. This idea allowed Socrates to so hit the books whether complexes were mere 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 different than an element, and therefore cannot have an account. after(prenominal) failing to determine what does and does not have an account, Socrates decides to turn his attention to determining what constitutes an account. First, he defines it as stating whizs judgment through speech. Immediately, this manifests flaws in the good 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 ill-advised because the possibility exists that one could simply memorize the elements without actually unde rstanding them. 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 turning operate 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).