Plato's and Aristotle's Views on Knowledge

Plato’s Theaetetus aims to answer the question, “what is knowledge?”. Throughout the book, we get some potential answers, but none of these answers passed Socrates’ investigation. Could this be a message from Plato stating that knowledge cannot be defined? Or did Plato leave all the information necessary to answer the question, but left the work of figuring what knowledge is to the reader? I think that the latter is true. In this paper I argue that an account must be an explanation which shows a deep level of understanding of understanding of the object or subject relative to the true opinion stated.

Between the two schools of epistemology, rationalism and empiricism, I am inclined towards the philosophies of rationalism. I am persuaded towards philosophical approaches which are superior at attaining truth. Empiricism relies on observation using the five senses in reasoning to achieve truth. However, in Plato’s Thaetetus, Socrates gives strong arguments for the limitations of human perception. The Canadian legal system, also, recognizes flaws in human observation, which increases my skepticism of empiricism. Conversely, rationalism relies solely on the use of logic and deduction in reasoning. Both, Plato and Socrates stressed the value of rationalism through the ability to know and express combinations of elements through mathematics. Large

“If the truth of all things always existed in the soul, then the soul is immortal” (The Philosophical Journey 89). This states that since the soul has all knowledge integrated, one recollects this knowledge through situations in an individual’s life and use one’s reasoning. With the dialogues of the Meno and Phaedo, Plato discusses the ideas of recollection and immortality of the soul in general. As well, the Republic, through the three different situations shown, Plato shows the ideas of the forms and what is real and what is not.

Socrates once said, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Several philosophers contradicted Socrates’ outlook and believed that true knowledge was in fact attainable. This epistemological view however had several stances to it, as philosophers held different beliefs in regards to the derivation of true knowledge. Rationalists believed that the mind was the source of true knowledge, while in Empiricism, true knowledge derived from the senses. Rene Descartes, a rationalist, and John Locke, an empiricist, were prime examples of epistemologists who were seen to differentiate greatly within each of their philosophies. However, although Descartes and Locke’s ideas did contrast in that sense,

There is much disagreement among great philosophers regarding the method by which the soul obtains knowledge. A strict materialist may say that knowledge is acquired solely through sense while Platonic scholars are more inclined to believe that sensation is entirely unrelated to the intellect. Among the most common postulates is the belief of Aquinas that all natural knowledge begins with sensory experience. Aquinas preaches that the intellect and the sense are unrelated. The intellect can be conceived while sensory experiences can be perceived.

Socrates once said, “As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.” Several philosophers contradicted Socrates’ outlook and believed that true knowledge was in fact attainable. This epistemological view however had several stances to it, as philosophers held different beliefs in regards to the derivation of true knowledge. Rationalists believed that the mind was the source of true knowledge, while in Empiricism, true knowledge derived from the senses. Rene Descartes, a rationalist, and John Locke, an empiricist, were prime examples of epistemologists who were seen to differentiate greatly within each of their philosophies. However, although Descartes and Locke’s ideas did contrast in that sense,

The discussion of true belief and knowledge in the Meno develops in the analogy of the traveling men; one who knows the correct path to Larissa and the other who has a true belief of the correct path to Larissa (Meno 97a-c). Socrates tells Meno that if both men led to the same result, then true belief is no more useful than knowledge and both beneficial (Meno 97c). This comparison changes in book five of the Republic when Socrates says an ideal state must have a philosopher-king as a ruler (Republic 473d-e).

In conclusion, this essay shows the knowledge is achieved by having a compromise between empiricists and rationalists such as Lucke, the empiricist, who accept intuition theory. Although this essay has concluded rationalism stand in opposition to empiricism, each one has advantages that contribute to our acquisition of knowledge. To avoid conflict, we must establish sound truth by trying to apply logic to experience, and verify our reasoning. After all, they support our attempts to know and understand truth and our world.

All philosophically related through one another, these three philosophers share similar views on human knowledge. Socrates established the Socratic Method of Examination as a way of teaching the ignorant. In the Analogy of the Sun and the Good, Plato uses Socrates’ perspective on knowledge to discuss the intelligible and sensible worlds to relay an underlying message about knowledge and its universal importance. Continuing to follow this Socratic philosophy, Plato introduces his Allegory of the Cave to depict the problem of ignorance using the metaphorical darkness of the cave and the symbolic chains preventing humanity from attaining uncorrupted knowledge. Aristotle forges his own path as he describes the five intellectual virtues and four causes that provide a gateway to untapped knowledge. Through their own examples and theories, the three philosophers outline the necessary means to attaining knowledge and ridding one’s self of common ignorance.

Without a clear understanding of what can be known and how it can be known, it is not possible to ascertain knowledge. Therefore, sound epistemological views are fundamental for sound reasoning and thinking. Thesis: The only knowledge which can be fully ascertained is empirical knowledge, knowledge which is gained through sense-perceptions such as sight and sound. Knowledge gained through pure reasoning can never be fully reliable because it is not grounded in experience of the material world.

Knowledge, that certain indescribable thing that everyone thinks they have a little bit of, is an elusive concept that nearly every philosopher from ancient Greece to the modern day has given at least a nod to. How, after all, can we know that we are right in something if we don't know what knowing is? This question, and the sometimes futile attempt to answer it, is called epistemology. More specifically, it is the study of how we know and what that knowledge actually is. Is knowledge objective, subjective, something else, or even possible?

Plato presents three different views about knowledge in Meno, Republic, and Theaetetus. In Meno's case, Plato believes knowledge as something innate in us when we are born; in his later view, in Republic, Plato believes we perceive things and gain knowledge; and from the last view, in Theaetus, Plato believes knowledge is the combination of a true opinion and a rational opinion. Strangely enough, Plato's views in Meno, Republic, and Theaetetus are similar, regarding the characteristics of knowledge. Despite that, Plato's views in Meno, Republic, and Theaetetus have different degrees of weakness in developing his argument about knowledge.

Do justification, belief and trust really describe knowledge? For the philosopher Plato, justification, belief and trust defines knowledge. This theory was popularly accepted until the philosopher Edmund Gettier proposed the contrary. Gettier suggested that knowledge is more than trust, justification and belief. According to Gettier, Plato’s theory does not define knowledge, because trust, belief and justification can be satisfied, but still these conditions do not led to knowledge. Knowledge from my point of view is more complex than what Plato proposed. In this essay, I shall first describe Gettiers arguments, and provide counterexample of why true, belief and justification fail to define knowledge, which finally, I shall present a possible solution to this philosophical problem.

A primary similarity between Aristotle and Plato is that they were both Greek philosophers. Plato’s philosophy is based on dissatisfaction of the world. He believed that philosophy was a practice for death and dying. He believed that the aim of philosophy is to transcend our attachment to the physical world, including our bodies. In contract, Aristotle believed the aim of philosophy is to not escape or transcend the physical world, but to make sense of it and understand it.

Aristotle: Plato, Knowledge has a cause to it. If there is no cause then there is no way of having knowledge. Knowledge is based on four causes: “the Material Cause, the Formal Cause, the Efficient Cause, and the Final Cause. These stages (causes) determine the gaining knowledge: looking at the materialistic view, looking at the idea behind it, the change behind the idea, and the purpose of the idea.” Once we have gotten to the last stage,