Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_23_6

Keywords:

episteme, doxa, Plato, Epistemology

Abstract

In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates often contrasts opinion (doxa) with knowledge (episteme), as a fallible form of cognition against an infallible one. He seems to suggest that by attaching to a true opinion a ‘calculation of cause’ or some sort of account, we can convert it into knowledge. Many scholars and epistemologists have taken this suggestion as evidence that the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief traces back to Plato. In this paper, I claim that it is inaccurate to suppose that Plato foresaw the tripartite analysis of knowledge of the Contemporary Epistemology. Focusing on the theory of recollection and the distinction between true opinion and knowledge in the Meno, I intent to show that the two-world metaphysics implies the treatment of opinion and knowledge as cognitions which are essentially different and mutually irreducible. Also, since Socrates was mainly concerned with the notion of knowledge as knowing what (is) which requires an apprehension of essences or Forms, he did not pay particular attention to the knowing that. As a result, Socrates did not argue to establish the conditions of justification to be given propositionally in order for a belief becomes knowledge.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Jose Lourenço Pereira da Silva, Universidade Federal de Santa Maria

Professor Adjunto do Departamento de Filosofia da Universidade Federal de Santa Maria. Área de atuação: História da Filosofia Antiga.

References

ALLEN, R. E. (1959). Anamnesis in Plato’s Meno and Phaedo. The Review of Metaphysics, v. 13, n. 1, p. 165-174.
ALCOFF, L. M. (ed.) (1998). Epistemology: The Big Questions. Malden, Blackwell.
ARMSTRONG, D. M. (1973). Belief, Truth and Knowledge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
AUDI, R. (2005). Epistemology: A Contemporary Introduction to the Theory of Knowledge. 3 ed. London, Routledge.
BERNECKER, S. (ed.) (2006). Reading Epistemology: Selected Texts with Interactive Commentary. Malden, Blackwell.
BENSON, H. H. (2015). Clitophon’s Challenge ”“ Dialectic in Plato’s Meno, Phaedo and Republic. New York, Oxford University Press.
BLUCK, R. S. (1961) Plato’s Meno. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
BLUCK, R. S. (1963). ‘Knowledge by Acquaintance’ in Plato’s Theaetetus. Mind, v. 72, n. 286, p. 259-263.
BERESFORD, A. (2005). Plato Protagoras and Meno (with an Introduction by Lesley Brown). New York, Penguin.
BOSTOCK, D. (1988). Plato’s Theaetetus. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
BRISSON, L. (2007). La réminiscence dans le Ménon (81c5-d5). In: ERLER, Michael e BRISSON, L. (ed.). Gorgias-Menon: Selected Papers from the Seventh Symposium Platonicum. Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag.
BURNYEAT, M. F. (1990). The Theaetetus of Plato. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
CHISHOLM, R. (1989). Theory of Knowledge. 3 ed. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall.
COOPER, J.; HUTCHINSON, D. S. (eds.) (1997). Plato Complete Works. Indianapolis, Hackett.
CROMBIE, I. (1964). An Examination of Plato’s Doctrines, v. II. London, Routledge.
DAY, J. M. (ed.) (1994). Plato’s Meno in focus. London, Routledge.
FINE, G. (2004a). Plato on Knowledge and Forms: Selected Essays. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
FINE, G. (2004b). Knowledge and True Belief in the Meno. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy, 21, 1, p. 41-81.
GERSON, L. P. (2003). Knowing Persons ”“ A Study in Plato. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
GERSON, L. P. (2009) Ancient Epistemology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
GETTIER, E. (1963). Is Justified True Belief Knowledge? Analysis, 23, p. 121-3.
GONZALEZ, F. (1998). Dialectic and Dialogue: Plato’s Practice of Philosophical Inquiry. Evanston, Northwestern University Press.
GONZALEZ, F. (1996). Propositions or Objects? A Critique of Gail Fine on Knowledge and Belief in Republic V. Phronesis, 41, 3, p. 245-275.
GOULD, J. (1955). The Development of Plato’s Ethics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
GUTHRIE, W. K. C. (1956). Plato. Protagoras and Meno. New York, Peguin.
HINTIKKA, J. (1974). Knowledge and the Known. Dordrecht, D. Reidel.
HOERBER, R. (1960). Plato’s Meno. Phronesis, 5, 2, p. 78-102.
IGLÉSIAS, M. (2001). Platão. Mênon. Rio de Janeiro, Loyola.
IGLÉSIAS, M. (2004). Conhecimento, linguagem e pensamento em Platão. Idéias, 11 (2), Revista do IFCH/UNICAMP.
KAPLAN, M. (1985). It’s Not What You Know that Counts. The Journal of Philosophy, v. 82, n. 7, p. 350-363.
LAFRANCE, Y. (1981). La Théorie Platonicienne de la Doxa. Montréal & Paris, Bellarmin & Belles Lettres.
LEHRER, K. (1990). Theory of Knowledge. Boulder, Westview.
LUZ, A. M. (2013). Conhecimento e Justificação: problemas de Epistemologia contemporânea. Pelotas, NEPFil online.
MARQUES, M. P. (2011). Contra a teoria dos dois mundos na filosofia de Platão. In: CONTE, J; BAUCHWITZ, O. F. O que é Metafísica: Atas do III Colóquio Internacional de Metafísica. Natal, Edufrn.
McDOWELL, J. (1973). Plato’s Theaetetus. Oxford, Clarendon.
MOLINE, J. (1981). Plato’s Theory of Understanding. Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press.
MOSER, P. K. (1985). Empirical Justification. Dordrecht, D. Reidel.
MOSER, P. K. (ed.) (2002). The Oxford Handbook of Epistemology. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
NEHAMAS, A. (1984). Episteme and Logos in Plato’s Later Thought. Archiv für Geschichte der Philosophie, Band 66, Heft 1, p. 11-36.
NEHAMAS, A. (1994). Meno’s Paradox and Socrates as a teacher. In: DAY, Jane M. (ed.). Plato’s Meno in focus. London, Routledge.
NOGUEIRA, A. M.; BOERI, M. (2005). Platão. Teeteto. Lisboa, Gulbenkian.
PLANTINGA, A. (1993). Warrant: The Current Debate. New York, Oxford University Press.
RUNCIMAN, W. G. (1962). Plato’s Later Epistemology. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
SANTOS, J. T. (2008). Para ler Platão: o problema do saber nos diálogos sobre a teoria das formas. Tomo II. São Paulo, Loyola.
SAYRE, K. M. (1995). Plato’s Literary Garden: How to Read a Platonic Dialogue.
SHARPLES, R. W. (1985). Plato Meno. (edited with translation and notes). London, University of Notre Dame Press.
SCHMITT, F. (1992). Knowledge and Belief. London, Routledge.
SCOTT, Dominic (2005). Plato’s Meno. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
SILVA, J. L. P. (2010). Episteme e logos no Teeteto de Platão. In: SARTORI, C. A.; GALLINA, A. L. (orgs.). Ensaios de epistemologia contemporânea. Ijuí, Unijuí.
SMITH, N. (1979). Knowledge by Acquaintance and ‘Knowing What’ in Plato’s Republic. Dialogue, 18, 3, p. 281-288.
SMITH, N. (2000). Plato on Knowledge as a Power. Journal of the History of Philosophy 38, 2, p. 145-168.
SMITH, N. (2012). Plato’s Epistemology. In: HETHERINGTON, Stephen (ed.). Epistemology: The Key Thinkers. London, Continuum.
SMITH, N.; EVANS, Ian (2012). Knowledge. Malden, Polity Press.
SOSA, E. et al. (eds.) (2008). Epistemology: An Anthology. 2 ed. Malden, Blackwell.
TRABATTONI, F. (2010). Fondazionalismo o coerentismo? In margine alla terza definizione de episteme del Teeteto. In: MAZZARA, G. Platone: la teoria del sogno nel Teeteto. Napoli & Sankt Augustin, Academia Verlag.
VLASTOS, G. (1994). Anamnesis in the Meno. In: DAY, Jane M. (ed.). Plato’s Meno in focus. London, Routledge.
WILLIAMS, M. (2001). Problems of Knowledge: A Critical Introduction to Epistemology. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
WHITE, N. P. (1976). Plato on Knowledge and Reality. Indianapolis & Cambridge, Hackett. rep. 1993.
ZAGZEBSKI, L. (2009). On Epistemology. Belmont, Wadsworth.
ZAGZEBSKI, L. (1999). What is Knowledge. In: GREGO, John and SOSA, Ernest. The Backwell Guide to Epistemology. S.l., Blackwell.

Downloads

Published

2018-04-17

How to Cite

Pereira da Silva, J. L. (2018). Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge. Revista Archai, (23), 167. https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_23_6

Issue

No. 23 (2018): Archai Journal nº23 (May, 2018)

Section

Articles

License

Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.

1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.