Critiquing Knowledge In Plato's Theaetetus And Meno

Improved Essays
Traceel Andrews
Paper # 3
Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? – Edmund Gettier
Gettier paper argued that for a thought to be considered justified there needs to be a necessary condition and that a third condition needs to be introduced for S to believe namely Q. Gettier talks about three other philosophers ideals and states that their ideas are wrong.
Plato’s Theaetetus and Meno
In Theaetetus, Plato through Socrates fumble with what knowledge is. Socrates has a dialog with one of Plato’s student, Theaetetus, in this dialog they discuss what knowledge is. One of Theaetetus’ definition is that knowledge is true judgement, in this definition they go through several accounts in which knowledge cannot be true judgement. In the final refutation, Socrates offers a counter example in which he states “a skilled lawyer can bring jurymen into a state of true belief without bringing them into a state of knowledge” (Theaetetus 200d-201c). This alludes that true belief and knowledge are different states. A person can have true belief without knowledge of or about the item in which they have true belief. When in court all that a
…show more content…
Said knowledge has the right to be sure. These cases are based of the individual perception, their entire case is based on their ability to provide proof of their proposition. Their proposition can be anything from a memory to something that they perceived. Ayer acknowledges that it is hard to possess such a proof of these types of proposition. He advises that the individual states general ideas, they also need to have evidence backing their proposition, in this case memories, testimony, or other forms of evidence is reliable (Ayer, p. 32). Ayer himself thought that this was too difficult of a task, that the correct standard to set for claims to knowledge was to be decided reasonably. One has the right to be sure even when the possibility that they may be wrong is

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    If we make judgements then they must have good reasoning in order to support and determine right from wrong. Without reason we wouldn’t be able to defend a belief, an action, or judgment. If we want to be able to have a rational argument about right from wrong, we need reasons that support the argument; having supportive reasons will let us believe something is right…

    • 774 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    The major and minor premise must coincide to yield a conclusion; this one of the rules that should always be applied when observing a syllogistic argument. One must use good reasoning when creating a logical statement. To look at the big picture, since logic deals with correct reasoning and since correctness of reasoning is closely related with truth and falsity, then when one reasons correctly, “if the premises of his/her argument are true, then it will be impossible for the conclusion to be false” (Popkin and Stroll, 243) because the statement is valid. Validity is the structure of an argument. Once the validity of an argument is established, one can acquire justified true belief.…

    • 1512 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Superior Essays

    To do so, the person must “i. [be] in that state at that time and ii. It is necessarily true that [they are] in that state at that time, then it is evident that [they are] in that state at that time” (p. 72) If these two conditions are not met, the person cannot trust their senses and lacks a foundation for justifying their beliefs. It is important to be able to trust our senses, because as St. Thomas says, “the intellect knows that it possesses the truth by reflecting on itself” (p.…

    • 1122 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    So the only possible way to have a true opinion in a court case would be to use your knowledge to guide oneself to find their own true opinion, proving how true opinion cannot be knowledge because you need knowledge to make a true opinion. In Frank A. Lewis’ book, “Knowledge and the Eyewitness: Plato "Theaetetus” he shows in detail how different true opinion and knowledge are within a court case. Lewis states, “He has been correctly persuaded, assuming that he has judged well. But if Knowledge and true opinion were the same, the very best juryman could not reach a correct judgment if he did not have knowledge. So the definition of knowledge as true opinion is refuted” (Lewis 186).…

    • 1317 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Truths that are attained by reason are to be broken down into elements which intuition can grasp, which, through a purely deductive process, will result in clear truths about reality. This is why he argued that a being who can think and rationalise for themselves must…

    • 1549 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    The quest for truth is both attractive and daunting. Logic provides us with a framework and systematic method of identifying arguments and following through to truth or falsehood. Through logical reasoning, we can identify what we might objectively agree upon, and what is subject to our interpretation. The effectiveness of our truth-seeking lies in our understanding of certainty, probability, truth that is demonstrable and non-demonstrable, and differentiation between our emotional and logical responses to persuasion. One of the largest obstacles to truth-seeking is the fallacy of all-out relativism, and the qualification of our emotional responses as reasonable.…

    • 1542 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    If Socrates is to successfully refute Thrasymachus and prove that it does in fact pay to be just, then he needs to find out precisely what it means to be just before moving on to whether or not it is beneficial to act in accordance with justice. However the only way in which good progress can be made is Socrates can get his opponent to sincerely believe in their discussion, and he fails to do this. After the “wage-earner” argument, the reader is reminded that the essence of Thrasymachus’ argument is that the unjust life is better and more profitable than the just. Socrates announces he will use a question-and-answer technique to tackle this position on justice, Thrasymachus is given no choice but to comply. When Socrates asks his opponent to answer truthfully, Thrasymachus responds by asking whether or not it even matters if he says what he really believes.…

    • 2199 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    Plato Vs Socrates

    • 1485 Words
    • 6 Pages

    Based on the requirements for attaining philosophic knowledge it could be justified merely by its overall effects; as well as its epistemic features. True belief, for example, might accomplish a sort of philosophic knowledge. However, true belief is more perilous compared to true knowledge; it can be subjected to all sorts of undermining, and therefore have its relevance erode over time. Knowledge might do better than true belief in inhibiting most non-rational motivations. This, however, may only be the indirect effect of features that make up knowledge.…

    • 1485 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    1. In Book I of the Republic, Cephalus defines justice as the following: justice is telling truth and paying debts. However, Socrates refutes Cephalus’s definition by claiming that there are situations when it is not just to tell the truth and pay the debts. Sometimes, contracts are bad though it starts out good. For example, it is not just to return weapon or entrust care to a friend who is insane.…

    • 1477 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This seems reasonable to believe since Clifford’s whole argument is based upon the principle of having sufficient evidence. But what evidence does a person have to leave a question unanswered? Their decision to do so would mean that one would believe that there is sufficient evidence to make a decision but contradicts the fact that Clifford says there was not sufficient evidence. James believes that this is one aspect of Clifford’s argument that he does not agree with. James does not agree with the idea that we shouldn’t believe ideas on insufficient evidence since it closes our minds off to suspense.…

    • 1238 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays