Skepticism Vs Plato

Have you ever questioned if the truth you know and abide by is actually the truth? Do you ever think that you actually know anything, or if there is any evidence to back it up? If so, you can most definitely relate to the views of skepticism. Skepticism is defined as “The view that we lack knowledge in some fundamental way.” (Vaughn 81) Skepticism has been both supported and challenged by many famous philosophers throughout history. Socrates and Plato are two philosophers who have each made a valid argument for either side of skepticism. Some philosophers may be concerned about it, while others do not seem to be concerned at all. As I noted above, skepticism is the idea that nobody truly knows the whole truth in anything at all. Socrates proposed

For example, religious people who believe in God could be challenged by a skepticist because there is no hard evidence he did actually exist. They would likely state what took place in the Bible and other religious texts do not constitute enough evidence. The idea of skepticism can be seen as somewhat concerning for philosophers because it is a way for others to challenge their views. Although, as long as a proposition is “believed in, true, and supported with good reasons, it qualifies as necessary and sufficient knowledge.” (Vaughn

Relativism follows along the same path as skepticism. It is defined as “The view that the truth about something depends on what persons or cultures believe.” (Vaughn 81) Plato also supports his stance on skepticism and views alike, by stating if those views were indeed accurate, philosophy would be widely open-ended and knowledge would be intolerable. In my opinion, there is no need to fear skepticism because if what skepticists believe to be true, then knowledge itself does not exist, and every concept imaginable is just based on one’s own beliefs. Plato responds to Sophists, skepticists, relativists, and those alike with an effective argument. His point centered on forming knowledge from beliefs, because in his eyes if a belief meets the criteria mentioned above, (as believable, truthful, and supported with good reasons) then it qualifies as knowledge. Under my perspective, it seems like no other measures would need to be required in order for that particular concept to be a knowledge-based