The Theaetetus, which dates all the way to 369 BC, is feasibly an exceptional work of Plato. This scholar devoted his entire life to the solemn goal of assisting individuals in attaining a state of fulfillment. In his Theaetetus, Plato focuses more on expounding on the nature of knowledge in a whole other area. It is just Theaetetus who gives a scenery of the thought of what knowledge actually is. The principal arguments of Plato in Theaetetus is that relativism is logically unsound. As such, Plato embarks on an extended attack on assumptions about knowledge to assert this. In this paper, the focus is on reconstructing and analyzing the principal arguments in Plato’s Theaetetus for and against relativism.
Difference between Knowledge and Perception
The Theaetetus, just like many other Platonic dialogues, majorly consists of question-answer conversations, the key questioner being Socrates. Plato engages Theaetetus who is a smart young mathematician alongside Theodorus, his tutor, who is not as young or brilliant. According to Sedley, Theaetetus purposes to provide some divergence between Plato’s authorial voice and the different voices such as Socrates’ present within the dialogue. It means that the Theaetetus brings in different perspectives all together. Alternatively, it may also purpose to generate questions on sincerity of knowledge grounded on the testimony.
Typically, according to the perception given here, it is clear that some truths need to be discovered about relativism and knowledge. Although some sophists believe relativism is the same as knowledge, the notion may not be true as portrayed by Plato. He reinforces this by saying that although the two are related to what one apprehends, there is objectivity related to them.
For instance, the argument about the temperature of the air, and the argument about there being “more” or “less” dice. According to the author, an individual would apply an aspect of relativism to know the quantity of dice rather than using knowledge. The author supports this argument by saying that if one has six dice and decides to put the other four besides them, then it would apply an aspect of relativism to say that they are half times as many. On the other hand, if he/she puts twelve beside the six, then the latter will be a half times few. Besides, an individual would use the knowledge to show that change of state does not only depend on temperature but also on air pressure. Generally, these two aspects are strongly reinforced by the author to show that there is a significant difference between knowledge and relativism.
The two different perceptions of the dice bring forth two puzzles as depicted in the first section of the Theatetus. The emanating puzzle is the contrast moral between grouped objects and quantifiable aspects of the human body. This comparison has served as the main foundation of Platonic scholarship. Contrastingly, there is no outright moral featured in one, and on the other hand, a quick solution is visible at face value, so simple that one can negate their viability as genuine puzzles. Arguably, the two puzzles have been often proclaimed as the ideal crux interpretations, and the worst case scenario “an infantile disease of philosophy”.
Protagoras’ theory of sensation is arguably one of the most profound theories depicted in the poem. Protagoras theory is a depiction of the mixture between the perceived and perceiver. The relationship between the two is based on the level of effect brought forth by the interaction. He suggests that champions of appearance rarely perceive things for what they are not. If something is presented in a partially whole way, it seems that it is not what it meant to be. Different agents possess an infinite self that is displayed with regards to the prevailing feeling. On the same point, the point of Socrates in health, and Socrates in sickness is brought forth. In a bid to solidify this point, Plato states that if he drinks wine while in good health, the patient and agent work in tandem and bring forth enjoyment in life. Drinking the same glass of wine while sick produces a whole different feeling as the agent is entirely different. The combination between wine and the sick Socrates is perceived by the tongue as bitter, and extends the bitter feeling to the entire body and the wine as well. On this note, Plato states that his person changes from the preceptor to the perceived. He further solidifies the point that what is good to you may be perceived differently by another person. Arguably, every object is relative only to one person, and only he has the capability to judge it based on the feeling it induces.
Protagoras theory of sensation also goes against relativism. All objects can only be perceived from an individual point of view. He further asserts that man is the measure of all things. Only human beings have the ability to view and embrace things at face value. Plato validates the notion by asking his counterpart why did Protagoras not start his book by declaring another living thing as the measure of all things. This is because no other being has the ability to create a similar connection between the perceived and the perceiver.
Another doctrine that disregards relativism is the issue that not every man can judge the future from the present. In order to cement this point, Protagoras likens temperature and as is perceived by different people. A classic case is a rise in temperature where an ordinary man connects this to a likelihood of catching a fever. The same rise in temperature will auger differently to a doctor. This difference in opinion makes it difficult for the layman to understand which opinion is to be upheld and which is to be disregarded. This gives rise to the idea that every man is not equally a judge and not everyone is uniquely poised to bring forth an expert opinion. Contrastingly, this negates the notion that man is the measure of all things. In further solidification of the point, Socrates states that the vine grower has a better understanding of wine and can predict the taste of wine even before it is matured as compared to the harp-player. Similarly, a cook is better poised to decipher the perceived feeling of a meal that is still in preparation than a guest does.
The other notion is the arguments against relativism: The argument from expertise shows that there is a big difference between knowing and believing. One difference is that the objective aspects of knowing are many as compared to what should be believed. The meaning of this is that one may believe in a known aspect although doing so does not guarantee that he/she is correct. The experts held this notion to show that unlike relativism one uses the knowledge to believe in an aspect that is true, and most importantly that is supported by good reason.
As a counter to relativism, Socrates negates that wisdom is generated by promoting popular or healthy ideas at the expense of the truth. He asserts that in order to justify the former idea, it is paramount to cater for the directions to be used. The perceived claims must prove to be independent truth grounds or provide evidence of usefulness, thereby conforming to an infinite regress. There also persists a major difference between ordinary people and philosophers. Additionally, Protagoras’ flux theory and his definition of knowledge is also brought into question. Socrates supports his ground by stating that if everything is centered around change, then it would be impossible to analyze perception from a stable point of view.
Socrates refutes Protagoras theory by stating that knowledge is only experienced from the depth and breadth of the mind, but not from perception grounds. For this reason, he states that real knowledge is a product of informed judgement. However, this introduces the issue of false judgements. In a bid to resolve this new revelation, Socrates likens the mind to a piece of wax. He further denotes that this way only alleviates the falsehood emanating from the mind and its perception, not the informed actions of the mind itself. Socrates moves on to try and salvage the idea that knowledge is the sum of informed judgement complemented by an account. Another point of view that fails to blemish is that we can vouch for something based on its variance from those that have failed. This idea also fails as it births an infinite regress.
According to Protagoras, man is the standard measure of all things; things perceived for what they are, and those perceived for what they are not. This is an indicator that judgements made by human beings are founded on certain perceived standards.
Moreover, unlike relativism, which an individual can use to tell the different sensations, one can only use the knowledge to think about particular and general concepts. So, although the forms are associated with general information, the only means that they can be categorized is via relativistic, but not knowledge. Besides, people learned the forms before they were born, hence they are aware of them. On the other hand, individuals have innate knowledge that calls for Socrates’ method for it to be elicited.
The Theaetetus finally concludes that individuals still have no idea of how to define knowledge. Even so, it does not mean that we have not gained education on what knowledge is like. It is evident from Theaetetus agreement that knowledge clearly does not comprise of mere impressions of sense but the reasoning on them[1]. It means that he has learned what knowledge is like. In furtherance, the ending holds deeper meaning that just the surface outlook of things. It is not far-fetched that Plato seems to provide hints of his own answer to the challenge. Understanding seems to emerge from the final discussion as wisdom. The epistemological success for readers in this part is dependent on gaining epistemological virtue whereby one starts to not just gain true beliefs on what knowledge is, but also an understanding of knowledge.
All this stated, it is evident that relativism is logically unsound. It has no basis as it refutes itself, and knowledge is unknowable since it lacks logos. Plato’s extended attack on
