 |
| |
|
|
monolith94
|
 |
New England
Jan 1970
time: 00:37
|
|
Ok, so it's a dialogue between Socrates and Thaeatetus, right? And it's all about what, exactly, knowledge is. I'm reading it for class, and it's pretty interesting.
So what is the purpose of this thread? Well, I suppose that we, too, could discuss the idea of what it is to know something.
However, more pointedly, I must ask agathon for assistance. For, you see, my philosphy professor is quite hot, and I want to say something smart and urbane to impress my awesomeness upon her. Go philosophy!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Agathon
|
 |
Leafs 4TW!! - CPA
Dec 2002
time: 00:37
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by monolith94
Ok, so it's a dialogue between Socrates and Thaeatetus, right? And it's all about what, exactly, knowledge is. I'm reading it for class, and it's pretty interesting.
So what is the purpose of this thread? Well, I suppose that we, too, could discuss the idea of what it is to know something.
However, more pointedly, I must ask agathon for assistance. For, you see, my philosphy professor is quite hot, and I want to say something smart and urbane to impress my awesomeness upon her. Go philosophy! |
A good start would be to spell Theaetetus correctly. 
If you want to look smart, here's a start. At the beginning of the first attempt it is claimed that knowledge must be of ?? ?? and be ???????. In English this is usually translated as "knowledge must be (cognition) of what is (or what exists) and be infallible (cognition) of that.
Each of the candidate definitions explores different interpretations of each of these criteria. For example true judgement is judgement of what is the case and is infallible in a sense because it must always be true. The problem is that it can be true when someone doesn't realize that it is, so this means that merely being correct is not the right sense of "infallible" for knowledge.
Similarly, the perception theory tries to rethink "what exists" as "what exists for me" and provides infallibility through sensation. Unfortunately that doesn't work either, since sensation isn't a form of cognition according to Plato.
This is the key to understanding the dialogue. There are basically two major interpetations. The modern one, in which Plato is rejecting his earlier Form-based account of knowledge in favour of something new or is expressing a new kind of sceptical philosophy. The second is the Ancient interpretation, in which the purpose of the dialogue is to destroy alternatives to the Form based account.
A chapter of my dissertation deals with this question. I can send you that as long as you promise not to copy it. It's not the best chapter as it makes use of a lot of other work in order to set up the later chapters of the dissertation which contain my own stuff.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
09-09-2005 07:16
|