Socrates False Judgement Analysis
1008 Words
5 Pages
In the procedure of trying to explain and detail false judgment, Socrates offers two puzzles, the knowing and not knowing puzzle and the being and non-being puzzle, “now isn’t it true about all things, together or individually, that we must either know them or not know them? I am ignoring for the moment the intermediate conditions of learning and forgetting, as they don’t affect the argument here” (Theaetetus, 188a). These puzzles supposedly show that false judgment is impossible and then dismisses three potential explanations of how false judgments may rise. The puzzle of False belief is accounted to misidentification. False belief happens when a person misidentifies one this as another. The puzzle is how such confusion can occur. The entities
…show more content…
The first puzzle, Knowing and not knowing, argues that it is impossible for false beliefs because if an agent knows or does not know the object of their judgment, how then can he mistake one object for another, it is impossible if one object is known and other is not, if neither are known or both are unknown. The grand reason for why the first puzzle shows false belief to be impossible is that Plato argues that if the agent has an object in his mind, in the sense and belief that he knows it, then he cannot mistake the object for another which Is either know or unknown. When Socrates the first puzzle showing that false beliefs are impossible, he then goes further to claim its impossibility by adopting a second puzzle, which is being and non-being. This second puzzle is placed on the belief that it is impossible to speak or think about that which is not. The belief was used by the sophist, that is the sophist argues on the impossibility of speaking or thinking of what does not exist and that id thinking or judging falsely attributes to thinking or what does not exist, then judging falsely is impossible. The effect of such argument claims that therefore all judgments and beliefs are true and it is impossible for an agent to judge falsely. The second puzzle opposing the possibility of false belief goes away from such an argument. Socrates also argues that in the same form seeing or hearing something that does not exist is impossible, likewise, it is not possible to believe and judge what does not exist. This puzzle reset on the comparison between perceiving what is not and thinking and judging what is not. As the argument plays on, if perceiving what is not, is impossible, then likewise judging or thinking what is not is also
The first puzzle, Knowing and not knowing, argues that it is impossible for false beliefs because if an agent knows or does not know the object of their judgment, how then can he mistake one object for another, it is impossible if one object is known and other is not, if neither are known or both are unknown. The grand reason for why the first puzzle shows false belief to be impossible is that Plato argues that if the agent has an object in his mind, in the sense and belief that he knows it, then he cannot mistake the object for another which Is either know or unknown. When Socrates the first puzzle showing that false beliefs are impossible, he then goes further to claim its impossibility by adopting a second puzzle, which is being and non-being. This second puzzle is placed on the belief that it is impossible to speak or think about that which is not. The belief was used by the sophist, that is the sophist argues on the impossibility of speaking or thinking of what does not exist and that id thinking or judging falsely attributes to thinking or what does not exist, then judging falsely is impossible. The effect of such argument claims that therefore all judgments and beliefs are true and it is impossible for an agent to judge falsely. The second puzzle opposing the possibility of false belief goes away from such an argument. Socrates also argues that in the same form seeing or hearing something that does not exist is impossible, likewise, it is not possible to believe and judge what does not exist. This puzzle reset on the comparison between perceiving what is not and thinking and judging what is not. As the argument plays on, if perceiving what is not, is impossible, then likewise judging or thinking what is not is also