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

many arguments that supported skepticism. Socrates is credited with living the “examined life.” He once stated; “The unexamined life is not worth living.” The underlying meaning in Socrates’ quote is that if someone is not observing their own behavior, and trying to make positive adjustments to their life, they are simply wasting their life. Since Socrates constantly examines his life, he supports skepticism by relating it to how improving your shortcoming can better your life. Overall, Socrates displays much behavior that would prove he is an advocate of skepticism. He focuses on what he may be lacking and what he can to make up for it. He was constantly preaching to his followers that they should concentrate on their faults and figure out solutions to advance the quality of their lives as a whole, much like how skepticists constantly challenge others’ beliefs to advance their own understanding.
Another great philosopher who had a firm stance on skepticism was Plato. Plato differed from Socrates in many ways, and greatly opposed skepticism. Plato argued that knowledge is a true belief, “Plato takes for granted that we can identify false beliefs and that we can grasp mathematical, conceptual, and logical truths.” (Vaughn 82) He reasoned that an opinion supported by a rational explanation could qualify as knowledge. Because Plato uses a great deal of rationalism and believes people can grasp conceptual and logical things he makes a worthy case against skepticism. Plato also gives further evidence to support his arguments such as; “Two plus five equals seven, no matter how hard you try there is nothing you can do to make two plus five equal nine.” (Plato, Vaughn 82) There is only one answer to a question like two plus five, just like how A comes before B and B comes before C. In cases like these one can prove all it takes to acquire knowledge is to have a rational explanation to support your claims. Overall, Plato is more focused on discovering truths, not inventing them. He believes that real truths exist and that there is sufficient knowledge and evidence to back it up, and there is nothing anyone can do to prove that it is wrong.
One of the reasons many philosophers are concerned about skepticism is because of the fact that it can challenge any philosophers’ views or opinions by arguing they lack some necessary knowledge.

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

81)
Overall, I stand with Plato on the concept of skepticism and also relativism.

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

truth.
In my estimation, skepticism is not to be feared because as long as a belief has enough rationale behind it, knowledge should be foreseeable. In everything imaginable there is always some sort of room for improvement, being skeptical is a good thing most of the time because it allows yourself to view things from more than one perspective and find things to improve upon. On the other hand, being skeptical all the time, inhibits your ability to acquire knowledge, because you get too wrapped up in your own beliefs and will not be able to have any knowledge. Knowledge is most definitely an important trait to hold, because without knowledge one will not be able to understand the problems that arise throughout life. Furthermore, if they cannot understand life’s problems they will not be able to deal with them in an effective manner and better their lives. I agree with Socrates that the unexamined life is not worth living, because the message is to acquire knowledge on how to right your wrongs. On the other end of the spectrum, I disagree with skepticism as a whole because it sends the wrong message that knowledge is unachievable, and concepts are based upon mere beliefs that cannot be proved to be true.