Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
The Elusiveness of Knowledge (Plato) - Coggle Diagram
The Elusiveness of Knowledge (Plato)
Proposition 1: Knowledge is true judgement
Socrates' Criticism
This does not account for mental distortions wherein one makes a judgement about something that they did not perceive.
Ex. Jury
A person who was an eye-witness to an event gives an account to a jury, and the jury might be able to judge correctly based on the account that they were given; however, this does not mean the account itself was accurate.
Even though the jury has made a true judgement based on the eye-witness' testimony, their judgement is not true knowledge.
This then implies that one would have to be an eye-witness to an event/phenomenon in order to make an accurate judgement about it.
Proposition 2: Knowledge is true judgement with an account
As was concluded from the jury example in proposition 1, a person must have witnessed an event in order to have true knowledge of it based on their true judgement.
Basic beliefs:something that that one knows it to be true, but cannot give an account of it.
Dream Theory
There are basic elements that are so fundamental that, while one knows them to be true, it is impossible to explain them.
This necessitates that there is a sum, being the thing that one knows to be true, and parts, which are the things that would make of the account of explaining the sum to be true.
Ex. Syllables and letters make up words. Words are the thing that we know, and syllable and letters make up their composition.
However! One can know a word without know the letters that compose it. Is knowledge of the parts necessary in order to truly know the sum? This seems to point to the fact that it is not.
Conclusion: One can know the sum without knowing the parts, and one can know some of the parts without knowing the sum.
Proposition 3: The parts are more know than the sum, so in order to have true knowledge it is better to learn the parts first in order to understand the sum.
3 ways to have true knowledge:
Giving an account
This method involves being able to explain something accurately.
Problem: Just as with the jury, one can be able to make a true judgement about something and defend it well, but this does not mean that they necessarily have true knowledge on the subject.
Differentiation
This involves being able to understand the ways in which one thing differs from another.
Problem: This does not allow one to understand one thing on its own without comparing it to something else.
Problem: This creates a circular argument wherein differentiation is knowledge and knowledge is differentiation.
True judgement without giving an account
This involves naming and understanding all of the parts in order to be able to figure out the sum.
Problem: If one misunderstand a single part, then their judgements will be flawed as they build up towards understanding the sum and they will not have true knowledge.
Aporia: All 3 methods of attaining true knowledge fail, leaving this question of knowledge open-ended.