Throughout the entirety of the book, Socrates is shown as being gifted in the engagement of influential discussion with interlocutors such as Theaetetus and Theodoros. Progressively evolving specified definitions of interest with the help of theories, wisdom from historically significant philosophers, and active conversation, these individuals are able to adapt their thinking and reasoning when conversing with Socrates. Specifically, in Theaetetus, Socrates works in a conducive manner to uncover the true definition of knowledge, and its relation to perception. Deviating from the definition stated by Theaetetus, knowledge was concluded as not being perception.
According to Protagoras, it was previously stated that “man is the measure of all …show more content…
He acknowledged that “the origin of all things, are actually flowing streams, and nothing stands still” (180d). Although there are others who believe in the contrary view that all things stand still, Socrates and Theodoros moved further on to characterize the two forms of motion: “alteration and spatial movement,” (181d) and revisited earlier stages of their discussion. Progressing, Socrates introduced the example of the color white by stating, “that what flows flows white; but rather it is in the process of change, so that there is a flux of this very thing also, the whiteness, and it is passing over into another colour.” With this being said, it would not be possible to name the color if it was constantly changing (182d). If the color was white in one moment, blue in another, and continued to follow this evident pattern of motion, then the individual would not necessarily be truly knowledgeable in what they were talking about; their knowledge is changing directly with their perception of things that are too, changing and in flux. Applying and generalizing this example to different situations, Socrates therefore declared that they “are not going to grant that knowledge is perception, not at any rate on the line of inquiry which supposes that all things are in motion” …show more content…
Through criticism and challenging ideas, it was declared that knowledge is not perception. In respect to Heraclitean views, if all things are in flux, an individual’s knowledge of things would be continually changing in a direct relationship to the varying perceptions gained through the individual’s senses. Therefore, there would be no concrete determination of what an individual would know depending on their perceptions. Following, with sense perception only limiting insight to what is an individual is aware of in a specific moment, it is unable to provide significant knowledge. It is through rationalization and intellectual reflection that one can grasp what something “is.” In essence, by eliminating what knowledge is not, they are one step closer to identifying what it truly
According to Protagoras, it was previously stated that “man is the measure of all …show more content…
He acknowledged that “the origin of all things, are actually flowing streams, and nothing stands still” (180d). Although there are others who believe in the contrary view that all things stand still, Socrates and Theodoros moved further on to characterize the two forms of motion: “alteration and spatial movement,” (181d) and revisited earlier stages of their discussion. Progressing, Socrates introduced the example of the color white by stating, “that what flows flows white; but rather it is in the process of change, so that there is a flux of this very thing also, the whiteness, and it is passing over into another colour.” With this being said, it would not be possible to name the color if it was constantly changing (182d). If the color was white in one moment, blue in another, and continued to follow this evident pattern of motion, then the individual would not necessarily be truly knowledgeable in what they were talking about; their knowledge is changing directly with their perception of things that are too, changing and in flux. Applying and generalizing this example to different situations, Socrates therefore declared that they “are not going to grant that knowledge is perception, not at any rate on the line of inquiry which supposes that all things are in motion” …show more content…
Through criticism and challenging ideas, it was declared that knowledge is not perception. In respect to Heraclitean views, if all things are in flux, an individual’s knowledge of things would be continually changing in a direct relationship to the varying perceptions gained through the individual’s senses. Therefore, there would be no concrete determination of what an individual would know depending on their perceptions. Following, with sense perception only limiting insight to what is an individual is aware of in a specific moment, it is unable to provide significant knowledge. It is through rationalization and intellectual reflection that one can grasp what something “is.” In essence, by eliminating what knowledge is not, they are one step closer to identifying what it truly