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
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.
We are asked in Book VII of The Republic to imagine a group of people sitting inside a cave, with their hands and feet bound. It is by this that we can decipher that these people did not ask to be in the cave but are merely prisoners. By being chained they are only able to observe what is in front of them, unable to fully see their surroundings or the people who reside in the cave with them. Behind the prisoners there is a fire burning, this fire is the only source of light in the cave. There is also a wall, where people, walking along a pathway carry objects of various materials, shapes, and sizes. These objects are held higher than the wall itself. With the aid of the fire burning behind the wall these objects are projected onto the wall in front of the prisoners as dancing shadows. The prisoner’s ignorance would lead them to believe that the names which they use to describe the various shadows were indeed the names of the object themselves. These prisoners have been residence of the cave since their childhood, and have grown to accept their surroundings are being true. Their entire experience is based on the shadows, which u...
Life without knowledge would be worthless. Talking about knowledge what i mean is knowledge about something. The description of the state of some object is knowledge. The object may be either abstract or physical. Some examples of abstract things include memory, feelings and time. But how we obtain knowledge? Many philosophers tried to find an adequate answer to this question. They came up with so many theories summarizing the process of knowledge. But none of them all was able to state a clear definition of pure knowledge. One of those philosophers is Plato. In this essay I am going to discuss the concept of knowledge according to Plato’s philosophic conception of knowledge. I will clarify what knowledge is not perception. And from this I will move to explain the justified true belief theory. Then I will show the lack in this theory by referring to counterexamples: the Gettier cases. To end up with a conclusion that states what is my understanding of the process of knowledge.
Knowledge, its source and truthfulness have been under question for a long time. People have always wondered what exactly constitutes facts and if there are any defining laws that can be attributed to all knowledge or information available in the world. Many philosophers speculated on how information can be interpreted according to its falsity or truthfulness, but have not come to definite conclusions. Edmund Gettier has provided one of the key pieces in understanding and trying to figure out what knowledge really is.
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.
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,
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:
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.
The Allegory of the Cave illustrated to us by Socrates has many meanings. The allegory explains the effects of knowledge on a person and understanding reality. Socrates speaks of this dark cave that is filled with people who have never left the cave before. The people are bound in a way that has forced them to look toward a wall 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 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 ...
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.
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.
They are in the dark about the truth and reality because they are unwilling to see the truth about the light, or the real world. They live with illusions of the real world but never get to see what really happens because of this unwillingness to believe others to see. They are stuck in their predisposed ways because they were never exposed to reality. If you can only see what is in front of you can ever know true reality. This story is representative of they way people live their everyday live and how what they live constantly might not be the highest knowledge. Ultimately when he can finally see the sun it represents what s the truth and goodness. The cave represents how people live their lives, in the dark, and “world of illusion” (Plato). The shadows in the cave represent the false reality everyday people see. This allegory make one question their own believes and reality. It teaches one to think about all their experiences in their life and think if the reality they know is true. He uses this story to explain how being a philosopher is like being the prisoner that can see, and the others stuck in the cave are the general masses that will not go though the pain of losing their reality to see the
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
Plato’s argues that reality is knowledge of the Forms. According to Plato, the visible things we see every day in our “world of senses” participates in a Form and is also dependent on that particular Form. The Form makes the visible thing intelligible and accounts for its existence. For example, the term “human” names the eternal existing Form of the human.