-Plato's (c. 427-347 BC) "Theaetetus" was the first work completely devoted to epistemology (the study of knowledge).
-The characters are Socrates, Theodorus of Cyrene (a Greek mathematician) and Theaetetus of Athens (a young Greek mathematician who was also super ugly, like Socrates).
-They are discussing what "knowledge" is (typical).
-Theaetetus first proposes that knowledge is "perception" (aestheses (where "aesthetic" comes from in English) in Greek), which can mean that our five senses or what we perceive with our mind. We know something when we perceive it!
-This obviously has problems, however, especially if two people perceive something differently. So, is truth relative? Is knowledge nothing but perception?
-Socrates comments that this is a common view ("truth is relative") by the sophist Protagoras (discussed in a previous post) in addition to the Pre-Socratic philosopher Heraclitus ("everything is in a change of flux") because everything is only what it seems to be to each individual person, something that means that everything is constantly changing and there is no inherent truth to anything.
-Protagoras would also argue that something is only "good" if it is good FOR YOU. WTF does "good" mean otherwise?
-What about facts? We can tell, for example, facts like temperature numbers and shit like that.
-Protagoras would say that these are still just numbers that we are perceiving and this is only true for us and maybe not true for someone else. How can we really know that there is a truth independent of what we perceive?
-Socrates counters by pointing out that if that's true, then what is the point of doctors? If taking medicine that you perceive to be true is good for you, then why would you need to seek a professional opinion? Or just predicting the future in general? Also, how can Protagoras' relativism doctrine be true if Socrates perceives it to be false?
-According to Protagoras then, Socrates' perception will even be true for Protagoras! This refutes Protagoras' doctrine.
-However, Protagoras maintains that it's just personal opinion on whether the doctrine is true or not, and that NOTHING is actually really true or false.
-Because of this, Theaetetus then proposes that knowledge is having true belief.
-Socrates points out that some sophists would argue that it's impossible to say or believe anything false. EVERYTHING is a matter of persuasion (we also saw this theme arise in the "Euthydemus").
-Eventually, the conversation reaches Meno's Paradox- either we know something, or we don't. If we know about it, then we won't make a mistake about it thanks to our knowledge, but if we don't know about it then we can't think about it, so we won't be able to make a mistake either. So we either have perfect knowledge of something, or no knowledge of it at all, and in neither case will we get things wrong. So it's impossible to believe anything false.
-Socrates points out (obviously) that there is a middle ground to this. He compares our perceptions to impressions in wax tablets, and that over time it fades and we make mismatches when comparing. Therefore, we can "know" something, but also make mistakes.
-Socrates also makes another analogy- our souls are like an aviary, and everything that we know is like a different bird in the aviary. New knowledge or info is like another bird. We now when we make a mistake because we pull out the wrong bird.
-But then again, later on in the dialogue they find this model faulty.
-By the end, Theaetetus still believes that knowledge must have something to do with true belief, plus something else.
-Modern-day epistemologists are still figuring this one out.
-They discuss other stuff too, but I guess it's more complicated and abstract and not so important as the main themes discussed above.
No comments:
Post a Comment