USA: +1 415 256 4347 
Sign in
Yes, I agree with Socrates’ critique of knowledge as perception in Theaetetus. What occurs in perception or connection determines what we think things to be. Things exist between the object and the subject, not on the outside or inside of us. As a result, if things were in themselves, they would not change as a result of our view of them. It wouldn’t matter if another object emerged if the objects were truly within us (Cooper and Douglas, 154). As a result, we must abandon the concept of pure existence or reality. Socrates criticizes that perception is not always correct in situations such as nightmares, insanity, and misinterpretation. If this is true, it is possible that things do not always become and that there is no such thing as existence. In this circumstance, it is impossible to discern between dreams and reality, and therefore between sane and insanity, as well as right and wrong perception (Cooper and Douglas, 158). As a result, perception is always correct, and one item seems to be two different things at the same time, which is impossible.
Socrates dialogue Protagoras shows how Protagoras felt that knowledge is about altering appearances or transforming something unpleasant into something pleasant, such as transforming disease and its symptoms into health and its signs. For example, the new state created by converting the old state is not always true; rather, it is different but better; so, wisdom is altering appearances for the better (Cooper and Douglas, 167). Therefore, truth, on the other hand, must be learned by the acquisition of presence; hence, knowledge begins at the level of the psyche’s independent activity, and there is no knowledge obtained through the faculties as Socrates depicts. However, Plato refutes the notion that using one’s senses entails knowing anything, claiming that knowledge is the result of the psyche’s ability to form judgements, a movement that extends beyond one’s own experience. Theaetetus believes that perception is the only source of certainty and knowledge. Protagoras ensures the veracity of all senses by relativization. There is no issue with one individual being correct about a color because there is no such thing as a color fact.
See related post about Socrates
In contrast to the dissenting opinion that if Protagoras is correct, the better has nothing to do with the truth, he is wrong that the better has nothing to do with the truth. In this case, he claims that his theory is actually correct. So, it is wrong to say that the better has nothing to do with the truth. So, it is a theory to claim the truth by claiming that it is not the truth, and that is the right thing to do. On the other hand, if his theory is wrong, it is not true that better has nothing to do with the truth, and there is truth. In other words, the lie here means that the truth exists elsewhere. It is impossible to be wrong when you do not have the right. After all, Socrates knowledge cannot be completely abstracted from the truth, even if it is only intended to look good.
Therefore, to Socrates perception is always associated with what is unmistakable, suggesting that it is knowledge (Cooper and Douglas, 214). Protagoras says that the existence of what exists is in their perception. He uses an example “When you’re with me, it’s clear that I’m sitting, but it’s not clear to anyone who isn’t here. It’s not clear if I’m sitting. And they say that all that exists is perceived. For example, I’m looking at the moon, but no one else is looking at the moon. It is not clear if the moon exists. In this way, they want to claim a lack of objective awareness to refute knowledge.
Although, Theaetetus proposes three responses to the inquiry in regards to information. As in the past, Socrates muddles each response by showing their lie. Theaetetus first likens information with sense discernment in saying that “to be aware” is basically “to see.” Through an extended trade, Socrates carries Theaetetus to the acknowledgment that sense insight can’t yield cases of information past what we see about the world out of the blue. For one individual, a blowing wind might feel cold, while to another a similar breeze feels warm; to a solid Socrates, a specific wine will taste sweet, though to a Socrates in medical affliction, a similar wine tastes sharp. Sense discernment plainly prompts going against claims with respect to the real world and accordingly can’t act as the reason for information.
Theaetetus hence recommends that information isn’t simply insight however evident judgment, or genuine conviction. To this Socrates considers the instance of a been persuaded by a jury attorney of a genuine position. He keeps up with that regardless of whether the attorney has effectively convinced them to consent to a genuine position, they don’t have information, as they’ve essentially depended on the legal counselor’s declaration. Who’s to say that the attorney isn’t just talented in human expressions of influence and has persuaded the jury of a misrepresentation? The jury could never be in a situation to recognize valid from deceptions for this situation. Theaetetus answers by recommending that information is valid judgment and a clarification concerning why one holds to such judgment. Through an examination of what it could intend to give a clarification to one’s convictions, Socrates holds that even here information can’t be found. Clarifications by and large look to comprehend an article as far as its parts, with the end goal that a comprehension of these parts is held to establish a clarification of the item overall.
I agree with Socrates the way he keeps up this thought of clarification neglects to get at the substance of an article maybe then clarifications expect that we comprehend how a thing is unique in relation to different things. This position, notwithstanding, expects that we comprehend what the thing being referred to is in any case, so neither will this record of clarification work (Cooper and Douglas, 189). Perception study has found that knowing needs far more than just feeling. It isn’t the case that a lot of what affects the resources as what happens in the mind; possibly, therefore, a lot of perception as judgment that gives knowledge isn’t the case. Although Theaetetus along these lines proposes that knowledge includes judgment and, all the more explicitly, that knowledge could be characterized as obvious judgment is in contrary with what Socrates advocates.
Socrates takes Theaetetus’ heading, however promptly represents the issue concerning the peculiarity of bogus judgment. Theaetetus consents to diverge with Socrates, and both now decided to make sense of the chance of making a misleading judgment with the goal of then recovering the idea of genuine judgment. As per Plato, knowledge should be basically obvious, objective, and expects thinking to achieve its pith. At last, there emerges the need of a spirit ‘with’ which we consider knowledge by making judgments on perception acquired ‘through’ the receptors. However, questions actually remain in regards to the legitimacy of the non-conceptualist hypothesis of perception. While Plato puts together his contention with respect to the non-conceptualist hypothesis of perception, it is essential to address whether it is conceivable for a man to see a thing exclusively on an illustrative ground free of the cognizant works of the psyche.
Socrates shows that clutching the idea that apparent properties have a place with either the apparent item or the subject seeing powers one into saying “the most shocking and crazy things” which he blames Protagoras and Heraclitus for doing. Socrates shows this mistake in thinking through a dice model. In this model, there are six dice. Four dice are put close to these six dice. The dice model represents a conspicuous instance of a property that appears just inside a specific setting. The dice model exhibits those properties have a place neither to the article apparent nor the subject seeing engaged with a specific perception.
Work Cited
Cooper, John M., and Douglas S. Hutchinson, eds. Plato: complete works. Hackett Publishing, 1997.
