Plato and the Concept of Knowledge Essay

Platos Theaetetus is a converse that discusses and attempts to find a translation of association. The dickens characters, Socrates and Theaetetus, approach the argument with the initial nous that knowledge is the addition of a lawful ruling and an account. However, Socrates raises some c one timerns regarding the fundamental aspects that pip the commentary neat. Ultimately, the two characters find that their first definition of knowledge is not as accurate, nor as simple as they once believed. The article opens with Theaetetus recalling a definition of knowledge he once heard, which stated align judgment with an account is knowledge and is thus knowable, and the kind without an account falls removed the sphere of knowledge and is therefore unknowable (126). Socrates begins to interview ones ability to figure whether something is or is not knowable, and he demonstrates the construct using the relationship between constituents and complexes.In doing so, he explains a r ecent inspiration of his, which, in turn, is actually an explanation of dream Theory. Dream Theory states that the primary elements, of which we and everything else argon composed, earn no account. Each of them itself, by itself, seat except be named (126). In other words, as elements cannot be upset down further, elements cannot take hold an account because that would command the find of whether or not the say elements exist. The addition of that information 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 are knowable precondition that their elements are not.When complexes are viewed as the fit of all their elements, it is safe to conclude that the complexes are unknowable, as their elements are unknowable. This idea allowed Socrates to hence consider whether complexes were mere sums or if they should or else be viewed as wholes that cannot be psychoanalyse into parts. However, the problem with this idea is that, when viewed as a whole that cannot be separated, the complex is then(prenominal)ce no different than an element, and therefore cannot have an account.After 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 ones judgment through speech. Immediately, this manifests flaws in the maven 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 cognize.Again, this must be amiss(p) because the possibility exists that one could simply swindle the elements without actually understanding 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 eventually would again be a anadiplosis of the true judgment. Additionally, one would be defining knowledge as true judgment plus knowledge, which would be considered a fallacy.This mark the final turning 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 establish the conclusion that knowledge is neither perception, nor true judgment, nor an account added to true judgment (133).