Relation and object in Plato's approach to knowledge (original) (raw)
Related papers
Theory of Knowledge According to Plato
Knowledge in its general sense being understood as an ultimate truth in its totality not merely dressed by definition. But then how can we know "Knowledge" or even argue on it without being defined? Philosophy is a surge for truth(Knowledge) and he who clime the ladder to surge he is not only seeker of the truth, but becomes the lover of truth. this paper will aim at critical philosophical investigation on the concept of truth and clarifying it with the notion of Perception according to Plato.
Oxford Scholarship Online, 2018
Several contemporary epistemologists have been intrigued by the discussion of the distinction between knowledge and correct opinion in Plato’s Meno (97a–98b); a number of them have suggested that Plato is appealing to the idea that to know a proposition one must be ‘safe from error’ regarding that proposition. In fact, although there is evidence that Plato assumes that knowledge requires something like safety, this passage in the Meno imposes a different requirement on knowledge—namely, what Robert Nozick called ‘adherence’, the requirement that knowledge must resiliently ‘adhere’ to the truth. Adherence is much more controversial than safety, but it seems that Plato accepted both, and it is argued that he was right to do so. Both adherence and safety can be understood in a ‘contextualist’ manner, but it seems that Plato rejects contextualism in favor of understanding both conditions in their most demanding form.
Plato and the Classical Theory of Knowledge
Folia Philosophica, 2019
In the paper the notion of the classical theory of knowledge is analyzed with reference to its source – the philosophy of Plato. A point of departure for the analysis is the characteristic of the classical theory of knowledge by Jan Woleński in his book "Epistemologia", (but it can be also found in the works of other researchers devoted to epistemology). His statements about Plato are weighted in the context of Plato's thought. The dialogues "Apology", "Gorgias", "Meno", the fragment, of the "Republic", "Theaetetus", "Timaeus" and the testimonies about the so-called agrapha dogmata are especially taken into consideration.
Plato, Hermeneutics and Knowledge
trópos: RIVISTA DI ERMENEUTICA E CRITICA FILOSOFICA, 2017
The dialogue “Theaetetus” has once again become famous due to discussion on the concept ‘knowledge’ in analytic philosophy. In my paper, I provide a novel interpretation of this dialogue and demonstrate how it can be applied for a specification of hermeneutics. For this, I revisit this dialogue and argue, against the dominant view, that Plato achieves a positive result concerning the concept of knowledge. I show that this kind of knowledge can be interpreted as a special kind of ‘practical knowledge’ and used for the reconstruction of a hermeneutic tradition à la Dilthey. I then demonstrate the main characteristics of this kind of knowledge analysing the relationship between the concepts ‘knowledge’ and ‘belief ’ and between the concepts ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’, and challenging the standard definition of knowledge as a true justified belief from the hermeneutic perspective. One methodological implication of my paper may be to challenge the dominant and sometimes eliminative projects assuming that all knowledge can be somehow reduced to propositional knowledge.
2005
Paper presented to the SAGP at its 2005 meeting with the Central Division o f the APA Socrates and Plato do not speak or write in one voice about wisdom, yet their altogether unique theorizing about it represents the focal point of the West's first philosophy, philosophia as the "love of wisdom." Significantly, then, Plato's differing notions and wordings for wisdom throughout his dialogues must be continually revisited and reexamined. Tentatively, I adopt Gilbert Owen's wording and senses of "univocal" and "equivocal," which he used in relation to Aristotle's philosophy, only as a heuristic guide, to inquire into Plato's own 'equivocal' senses of wisdom.1 Because Plato has no 'univocal' or single-minded sense of wisdom, it is critical to revisit certain claims and assumptions about his contrasting and complementary usage of terms, their meanings, and importance for his overall theory of wisdom. By so doing, his philosophy emerges in clearer sight. By this analysis, some of these claims are re-evaluated and overturned. Of particular interest are those views that have been formerly accepted as developing or changing from Plato's Republic to the Laws regarding the kind of wisdom, hence also the philosophy necessary to guide the State. My interpretation diverges at key junctures from some of the standard interpretations of the meaning and significance of these changes. First, we can agree that clear differences are to be found between Plato's depiction of philosophical wisdom and the philosopher rulers in the Republic and in the Laws. By way of preliminary background for these changes, Plato's depiction of the kind of philosophic wisdom necessary for political leadership, at the same time, also reflects the underlying nature, constitution, and values of their different forms of political society and government. As a result of these Platonic interconnections, Plato's description of the nature of political society, and his characterization of philosophers as political leaders contain further reason and evidence for his making novel developments in the theory of wisdom between the Republic and the Laws. Instead of dividing and breaking away from theories in earlier dialogues, Plato's final views actually serve to advance, broaden, and perhaps unify his overall conception of wisdom and philosophy.
Plato on aporia and self-knowledge
Ancient Models of Mind: Studies in Human and Divine Rationality, 2010
This essay discusses Plato's conception of self-knowledge, technical knowledge, and ethical knowledge in the Charmides. It also analyzes the difference between "expert" and "elenctic" knowledge (deductive vs. aporetic) in the early Platonic dialogues. It argues that Plato also presented a kind of knowledge that differs from these other kinds of knowledge: self-knowledge. This is not elenctic, ethical, or technical knowledge. I also discuss Plato's conception of aporia.
Recovering Plato: A Platonic Virtue Epistemology
Logos & Episteme, 2014
Recently, there has been a move in contemporary epistemological philosophy toward a virtue epistemology, which sees certain character traits of the rational agent as critical in the acquisition of knowledge. This attempt to introduce virtue into epistemological investigations has, however, relied almost exclusively on an Aristotelian account of virtue. In this paper, I attempt to take a new tack and examine a virtue epistemological account grounded in Platonic thought. Taking seriously the distinction between knowledge and opinion found in The Republic, I then draw upon two virtues, humility and, what I call, sincerity, to flesh out this account
A COMPARATIVE STUDY BETWEEN PLATO & ARISTOTLE’S PHILOSOPHY
*Mahfuza Zannat, **Zhang Longhai, ***Sanjida Forkan , Universe International Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 2020
The paper mainly focused on discovering how Plato and Aristotle's experience differ when both of them dealt with same concepts, such as, body and form, social-political system etc. The immutable point is they both purposed to quest truth. Implying comparative method, the research has been carried out. In 367 B.C.EAristotle took part in Plato's Academy in Athens as a student, where he came to be known as Plato's one of the best students being distinguished himself from Plato's view, eventually he became a mentor himself. Philosophically, Aristotle's research is more pragmatic than Plato, focusing on nature and real world. Plato's experience of 'artistic golden age' has made him more envisioned toward an 'ideal world' and being influenced by his father Aristotle prioritizes a philosophy depending upon rational world. The present study has discovered a comparison and contrast between two cornerstones of philosophy. Albeit Plato was Aristotle's mentor, we notice a number of prominent differences between their ideologies. Being Plato's favourite pupil in Academy, Aristotle has deliberately represented his own views. It seems both these ancient philosophers have put some efforts to enlighten the modern society approaching that two people with different moral perspectives still might be good to each other. Taking considering both of their ethics when one is materialistic, other is idealistic, the study accentuates that if pragmatically things can be done in accordance of Aristotle, Plato's 'ideal world' cannot be placed together because human world cannot be isolated from imperfection.