Analysis Of Plato's Theory Of Recollection

In this paper I’ll discuss Plato’s theory of recollection in a close reading of the Phaedo. The theory of recollection (ToR) accepts the following premises:

1. We come into being with knowledge.

2. We must’ve learned this knowledge before birth.

3. Therefore, the soul is immortal (Phaedo 73a).

In the forthcoming paragraphs, I’ll clarify exactly what we recollect and what constitutes as a cognitive act as being an act of recollection. Additionally, I’ll present two different interpretations, K and D, on the theory of recollection and argue for D while offering an error theory for K. Both interpretations are meant to answer two questions: What the process of recollection of the Platonic “forms” is and who recollects. Let’s start by examining why ToR was even presented.

If he so happens to find it, how will he know what it is? (Meno 80d). Plato takes Meno’s first premise, and therefore the conclusion, to be false on the premise that we already come into being knowing. If we’ve already learned all there is to know before birth, then learning is merely recollection of past knowledge. If this is true, then the paradox is invalid and it should not sway one from the task of inquiry. To be clear, the thing that is being recollected is what Plato calls the non-sensible forms. As a matter of fact, those non-sensible forms we compare to sensible objects and in order to make that cognitive act, one must have known the form before. In the Phaedo (especially 73a-75c), Plato presents the conditions of a cognitive act being an act of knowledge; that being the the knowledge of the form. The conditions being: “If I recollect x upon seeing y… (1) I must’ve known x