Arguing with Plato
1. The Jury’s problem describes a scene: how do you know the truth of the accuser’s descriptions of a case as it is not as through you had been there?
Conclusion: you have a belief about it which is true, and no actual reason to doubt its truth.
2. 《The Theaetetus》:Socrates here, is the midwife of other’s ideas, which means he refuses to put forward his own ideas about what knowledge is, he shows faults in all of the account of knowledge suggested by young Theaetetus.
3. What is required for knowledge?
Plato claims that the jury lack knowledge because: ① They have been persuaded, by someone whose main aim is to get them to believe what he wants them to believe, even if the story hadn’t been true.
② The sort of fact the jury have been persuaded of, is not the sort of fact that you could have knowledge of anyway unless you had been there and seen it for yourself.
4. A problem for us
① Persuasion could not account to knowledge.
② No way of conveying beliefs could account to knowledge, since they are second-hand. Relying on someone else’s testimony is never the same as experiencing the fact for yourself.
京公网安备 11010802032529号