Philosophy
The Definition of Knowledge — Theaetetus
What is Knowledge? Plato, in his book Theaetetus, explores this question. It is written as a dialogue between Socrates and his student Theaetetus.
They attempt to answer, what is the essence of knowledge, and what counts as knowledge. They both try to find the necessary and sufficient conditions for something to be classified as knowledge. They both attempt to find a unified definition of knowledge. They bisect through the various meanings of it. They try to narrow down its parameters through the Socratic method of asking and answering.
Is Knowledge Perception?
The first definition bisected by Socrates and Theaetetus is that knowledge is perception. Perception includes all our sense experiences, sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing and the brain. Protagoras and Heraclitus also had this theory of knowledge.
Heraclitus famously said,
“Man is a measure of all things”.
He meant that if one can measure or perceive something, he knows it.
Socrates refutes this definition of knowledge. He asserts that with this definition, as any perception is indistinguishable from any other, anyone with perception can claim to know.
Human Perception is faulty. It can easily be tricked through illusions or hallucinations. Dreams are also perceptions. But they are wildly different from reality and should not constitute knowledge. Animals also have perceptions, so animals also know. Hence, this definition needs to be completed at best.
Truth and knowledge exist independent of perception or the number of people who believe in it.
History is proof that our Human Perception is Faulty.
For example, thousands of years ago, people perceived that the Earth looked flat. Hence it must be flat. People thought they knew. It was when people started to do experiments and explore the world that they realised how little they knew. Just because many people perceive or believe it and it looks true does not make it ‘knowledge’.
This fact also shows how arrogant humans are about what they think they know versus what they know.
Humans consider the brain the most complex thing in the universe.
Emo Philip said, “I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realised who was telling me this.”
Perception and True Belief?
The next attempt was that knowledge is perception combined with true judgement or true belief. Socrates thinks they are making progress. They are getting closer to the essence of knowledge, but they have yet to be quite there.
He gives the example of a jury that judges a case, yet we cannot say that they have gained knowledge. It could be a simple case of persuasion.
He then proceeds to give multiple counter-examples to show that beliefs are always true and there is no such thing as a false belief.
One of the counter-examples is the misidentification of two objects and how one cannot mistake one for the other.
The argument goes like this, “One cannot falsely believe one object for the other unless one can formulate thoughts about both of them. But one cannot formulate thoughts about the objects unless one is acquainted with both objects. But being acquainted with both objects means knowing them, and anyone who knows them cannot mistake them for each other.”
Justified True Belief
This discussion leads them to the following definition of knowledge: true judgement with an account. This definition is also where we get the traditional understanding of knowledge: it is justified true belief.
Socrates bisects the theory that is now also known as the Dream Theory. It states that knowledge of anything is a true belief about the thing itself and an account of its parts (its composition).
A direct result is that it cannot be known if a thing is not composite. Then it is only perceivable as it does not have any parts. Then Socrates puts forth this dilemma: anything is either no more than its elements or something over and above them.
If we assume the former, it is only possible to know a thing if one knows its parts. If a complex is knowable, its elements are knowable, too. If its components are not knowable, then the complex itself is unknowable. This statement is a direct contradiction to the Dream theory.
If we assume the latter, then knowing a complex would mean knowing the elements alone is not sufficient. That means the complex turns out to be “A single idea that comes out of the fitted-together parts.” But then that would mean that the complex is not made of those parts because if it did, it would compromise its singularity. If these elements cannot be the elements, they cannot be composed of any other. Hence, the complex does not have any, which makes it the same as an element. Thus, the composite can only be known if a component is known. This statement is also a contradiction to the Dream Theory.
Socrates is overcomplicating things unnecessarily. He needs clarification on the knowledge of how to put the elements together and knowing the elements themselves. One needs knowledge of both to see the complex. For example, to know the word ‘Theaetetus’, one needs to know the aspects of the word, which are the alphabet. But, one also needs the knowledge of the concept of how alphabets combine to make words. One must also have the correct knowledge of the order of these alphabets.
In conclusion, Theaetetus is an in-depth discussion about the essence of knowledge and what counts as knowledge and makes us think about what we mean when we say we know. Socrates does not answer the question, ‘what is knowledge, but he takes us a step closer by narrowing down what knowledge is not. We get the foundation of the traditional knowledge account from Theaetetus, the closest we have come to a unified theory of knowledge. This account applies to most of our modern everyday usages of the word.
Thanks for Reading! Show some love! I would love to know your thoughts in the comment section!
I am a freelance content writer, blogger and graphic designer. Email me at: hnambiar200@gmail.com for work.
If you like my stories, kindly donate to the link below this article. Every small bit helps!
