What Is Knowledge?
Three times the plainest and hardest question in philosophy is answered, and three times the answer fails — an inquiry that ends, deliberately, with nothing settled.
Theaetetus proposes that knowledge is perception, then true judgement, then true judgement plus an account; Socrates, calling himself a midwife who helps other minds give birth, tests each to destruction. Perception collapses into Protagoras' relativism — man the measure of all things — which he dismantles; true judgement fails because a jury can be talked into a correct verdict knowing nothing; the third runs in a circle. The dialogue ends in honest aporia, clearing wrong answers without reaching a right one. Its last definition is the distant ancestor of modern 'justified true belief' and the Gettier problems that trouble it.
- knowledge
- epistemology
- truth
- perception
- definition
- relativism
- judgment
- cognition
- false opinion
- language
Enter a dialogue
- A servant girl laughed as the thinker Thales, gazing at the stars, fell into a well. Why does the jest, in your Socrates' telling, fit every philosopher?
- A dreamer is certain he is flying. If knowledge is simply what seems true to each of us, why would his certainty not count?
- Someone learned a fact but cannot call it to mind now. Your Socrates likens knowing to owning birds kept in an aviary. Do they still know it?
- A jury hears of a crime none of its members saw and reaches the right verdict. Your Socrates calls that true opinion, not knowledge. What would knowing add?
- You let all three answers about what knowledge is collapse and end with nothing settled. What does anyone gain from an inquiry like that?