Traditionally, Plato Philosophers have analyzed knowledge as being a justified true belief. Based on the views of different philosophers, one can be pessimistic about the applicability of this definition. I will elaborate my reasoning by arguing that other philosophers have challenged ‘justified true belief’ with analytical propositions that contest Plato’s argument.
1. Explanation of Justified True Belief Plato philosophers defined knowledge as being justified true belief. Thus, a belief is knowledge if it is true and there are reasonable and necessary assertions to justify it. If these criteria are met, a proposition can be deemed knowledge. For example, Person A believes ‘all chefs cook’. Person A is justified due to a priori knowledge,
…show more content…
However, how does one define and determine whether something is true? Primarily, truth is characterized by its inability to be refuted. However, this definition contrasts with ideas erected from Plato’s “Myth of the Cave,” which suggests all knowledge can be challenged. From the perspective of the prisoners of the cave, reality is interpreted in a particular way. How can we expect to “see anything but shadows,” if we are “never allowed to move [our] heads?” (Plato). Plato proposes we take what we see as if not having any personal experience to justify that a proposition is true. Until he ventured out of the cave, he was unable to realize his knowledge was based upon false beliefs, only knowing what he gained from experience. Shadows on the wall were his reality, independent of objects that created them. Thus, in order to gain knowledge, one must venture into the unknown, but like the prisoners, one is unable to grasp what they do not know. Despite the reasoning given by the escaped prisoner, the other prisoners refused his knowledge as justified true belief, and even threatened to kill him. Meno states in a dialogue with Socrates, “How will you look for something when you don’t in the least know what it is? […] Even if it came right up against you, how will you know that what you have found is the thing you didn’t know?" Meno’s paradox proposes it is impossible to search for something you do not know because you do not know it yet. After reflecting on the prisoners’ rejection of their reality, can we be certain knowledge is justified true belief? There always exists a possibility that humanity is comparable to the prisoners in the cave, living in a shadowy world of particulars. If one lived in this world of uncertainty, how could one determine whether anything is true or not? Here we are confronted with the issue of infinite regress, which is a sequence of unending justifications. One can
Right after Socrates comments how they can both look for virtue, Meno gives him these questions: “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing you did not know (80d)?” This is Meno’s paradox which explains the discovery of knowledge is impossible and if you do not know what you are learning, and that you cannot discover it either. Meno states in his first premise that you either know what knowledge is or you don’t, and whether you do know it or not, you cannot discover what that piece of knowledge is. This,
Inside the cave, the prisoners believe that the shadows they see on the wall are actual reality. Their “bodily eye” tells them that this world is real because their senses perceive so. Plato suggests that the senses do not perceive actual truth.
Zagzebski defines knowledge by expressing the relationship between the subject and the truth proposition. A truth claim becomes knowledge when your state of belief makes cognitive contact with reality. What it is to know that you understand something is different from having a relationship with something. Propositional knowledge, that can be known or believed, is her focus due to simplicity. The criteria required for belief is to have a thought, followed by augmentation with experience. The minimal criteria for a definition of knowledge must incorporate two types of “good”; a moral and an ethical. These truths are implemented to develop the foundation on which Zagzebski later builds her definition.
With the use of Socrates’ elenchus , Meno finds himself in aporia , and leads him to introduce us to, what is titled, the paradox of knowledge. It is, as he states:
There is no concrete definition of knowledge, but there is a definition that is widely agreed upon, or a standard definition. This definition may be widely accepted, but just like most things in philosophy, it is controversial and many disagree with it. The definition involves three conditions that must be met in order for one to truly say that they know something to be true. If one were to state: “The Seattle Mariners have never won a world series,” using the standard definition would look like this: first, the person believes the statement to be true. Second, the statement is in fact true. Third, the person is justified in believing the statement to be true. The three conditions are belief, truth, and justification. There are the “necessary and sufficient conditions” for knowledge. Necessary and sufficient conditions are linked to conditional statements, ‘if x, then y’ statements.
Human beings' knowledge of goodness, reality, and truth will always be limited by our fear of new ideas and new perspectives. As long as we are afraid of questioning, we will be willing to "put to death" anyone who ascends and returns to the cave with the truth.
The Republic is considered to be one of Plato’s most storied legacies. Plato recorded many different philosophical ideals in his writings. Addressing a wide variety of topics from justice in book one, to knowledge, enlightenment, and the senses as he does in book seven. In his seventh book, when discussing the concept of knowledge, he virtually addresses the cliché “seeing is believing”, while attempting to validate the roots of our knowledge. By his use of philosophical themes, Plato is able to further his points on enlightenment, knowledge, and education.
In the essay “The Allegory of the Cave,” Plato addresses how humans generally do not pursue knowledge. Most humans are satisfied with what they already know and do not want to expand their knowledge. Plato uses simple examples to help the reader understand his logic on why humans do not expand their knowledge.
In Plato’s The Republic, Book seven, he discusses the cliché “seeing is believing”. By Plato’s use of symbols to help explain his point of ignorance in truth due to our traditions, society’s constant fear of change and our natural ability to question what we see. In this allegory, the depictions of humans as they are chained, to only learn by sight. Plato toy’s with the notion of what would happen to people should they embrace the concepts of philosophy, to become enlightened by it, to see things as they truly are. As we have seen in class, Plato’s theory did not only present itself in his allegory, but also in the Wachowski brothers’ hit-film, The Matrix. In the film, the protagonist, Neo, suffers from a similar difficulty of adapting to reality, or the truth, which we will see later on. Throughout this paper, it will be argued that, Plato’s use of these symbols, he ultimately concludes that true knowledge is knowledge that we have of what we see and not knowledge of what we see, as was the case of the prisoners in The Allegory of the Cave.
On this wall they have shadows acting out a seen that are shown by the fire lit behind them. The prisoners watch these stories with the belief that this is life. According to Socrates, people in general rely on their bodily senses as their main source of understanding. He believes people rely too much on their sight to interpret the world.... ...
Plato and Aristotle propose theories of knowledge in which they both agree that the knower is measure by the known and that knowledge is an exchange within the world. However, their respective theories may be considered polar opposites of one another especially when considering that Aristotle rejects Plato’s theory and admits that ‘informed opinion’, is a form of knowledge whereas Plato rejects opinion as a form of knowledge.
One of the biggest questions that humans have is “what is reality”. Plato suggests that, “ we are born in illusions,” (Plato) and that the truth is initially blinding. “The Myth of the Cave,” is a narrative story about the idea of reality, it is explored though an allegory about a man finding out the truth about reality coming from a life in the dark. They can only learn about true mainly through reason and truth. The story is told as a metaphor for what happens in the natural world and how people can be stuck in the dark about reality. Plato tells the story through the voice of Socrates, his mentor.
The objective of this essay is to examine to what degree Plato’s argument that philosophers should be the rulers of the Republic is well-founded and logical. Plato asserts that philosophers should become kings, or vice versa, as they retain a higher level of knowledge that most people do not. According to him, this is what is required to rule the Republic successfully. In this essay, I will explain why Plato’s idea for the "philosopher king" rule is not persuasive or realistic. But also that certain aspects of his ideal kind of ruler do appear in the modern state. For my dispute, I will dissect Plato’s argument for the philosopher king and its limitations. Furthermore, I will consider what aspects of a philosopher king's rule are logical in
In this paper, I will explain and critique Plato’s view of reality. I will argue that Plato’s argument is problematic because it fall’s victim to numerous fallacies, the most famous of course being the third man problem. First I will explain a problem in Plato’s theory. Finally I will suggest an alternative to Plato’s theory. This issue is important because the question of reality has plagued philosophy since its beginning, which many people feel has still never been satisfactorily answered.
Plato believes there is two types of worlds that are of knowledge and opinion. As he understands, what is an every lasting reality is a true knowledge, which is the heart of what needs to be understood and everything people need to know. As he says for opinion, it will be only successful some times, as knowledge will always be right and successful at all times when implemented. An opinion for him has no base on true knowledge, but pure people’s speculations of their points of views. A true knowledge will never be influenced by any changes and it cannot be affected by anything; it will stand alone without changing. In Plato’s argument of how men will acquire knowledge in life, he says that knowledge resides in men’s immortal soul prior to his birth; this is how men will first encounter what he calls the “Forms” in that