Socrates Death Condemnation Reasons

Platohagel: Why was Socrates condemned to death?

Socrates: I was condemned to death in 399 BCE primarily on charges of impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens. These charges, however, were deeply intertwined with the political and social tensions of the time.

1. Impiety (Asebeia): Socrates was accused of not believing in the gods of the city and introducing new deities. This charge stemmed partly from his philosophical inquiries, which often questioned traditional beliefs and the nature of divine beings.
2. Corrupting the Youth: Many Athenians believed that Socrates’ teachings and methods of questioning undermined the traditional values of the city. His students included many young men who were critical of Athenian democracy and some who later became associated with the oligarchic rule in Athens, which contributed to the hostility against him.
3. Political and Social Climate: Athens had recently gone through a tumultuous period, including the Peloponnesian War, the brief rule of the Thirty Tyrants, and the restoration of democracy. Socrates was seen by many as a destabilizing figure because of his association with some of the oligarchs and his criticism of democratic practices.

In essence, Socrates was condemned not just for religious and moral reasons, but also because he represented a challenge to the existing social and political order in Athens. His method of questioning and his perceived influence on the youth were seen as threats to the stability of the city.

Platohagel: How was Socrates death sentence carried out?

Socrates: My death sentence was carried out by drinking a cup of hemlock, a poisonous plant. After being convicted by a jury of Athenian citizens, he was given the opportunity to propose an alternative punishment, but his proposals were either sarcastic or unaffordable for his supporters. As a result, the death sentence was upheld.

The execution took place in a prison cell in Athens. According to accounts from Plato, particularly in the “Phaedo,” Socrates was calm and composed, spending his final hours discussing philosophy with his followers. When the time came, the jailer brought Socrates the cup of hemlock. He drank it willingly, continuing to speak to his friends about the immortality of the soul.

As the poison took effect, Socrates gradually became numb, starting from his feet and moving upwards. He remained conscious until the numbness reached his heart, at which point he passed away quietly. His death was marked by his commitment to his principles and his acceptance of his fate without fear or bitterness.

Platohagel: Did Socrates create the Socratic method?

Socrates: As Socrates I am credited with developing the Socratic method, though he did not invent it in a formalized sense. The method is named after him because it was the primary way he engaged in philosophical inquiry.

The Socratic method involves asking a series of probing questions to stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas. Rather than providing answers, Socrates would challenge his interlocutors to examine their own beliefs, identify contradictions, and refine their understanding through dialogue. This method encourages the pursuit of knowledge by revealing the limitations of one’s assumptions and encouraging deeper exploration.

While Socrates didn’t write down his teachings or explicitly codify the method, it became closely associated with his philosophical practice, particularly as recorded by his student Plato in dialogues like the “Euthyphro,” “Apology,” and “Meno.” The Socratic method has since become a foundational technique in Western philosophy and education, emphasizing the importance of questioning and dialogue in the search for truth.

Platohagel: What were some Socrates most famous sayings?

Socrates: I as Socrates am known for several famous sayings, many of which have been passed down through the writings of his student Plato and other ancient sources. Some of the most well-known include:

1. “The unexamined life is not worth living.”
   This is one of Socrates’ most famous declarations, made during his trial as recorded in Plato’s “Apology.” It emphasizes the importance of self-reflection and philosophical inquiry in living a meaningful life.
2. “I know that I know nothing.”
   Often paraphrased as “I know that I know nothing,” this saying captures Socrates’ belief in the importance of recognizing one’s own ignorance. It reflects his humble approach to wisdom, suggesting that true knowledge begins with acknowledging the limits of one’s understanding.
3. “To find yourself, think for yourself.”
   While not directly attributed to Socrates in the classical texts, this phrase embodies the spirit of his teachings. Socrates encouraged independent thought and the pursuit of truth through questioning and dialogue.
4. “An unexamined life is not worth living for a human being.”
   This reiterates the importance of self-examination and the philosophical life, urging individuals to critically evaluate their actions and beliefs.
5. “Know thyself.”
   Though this phrase is often associated with Socrates, it actually originates from the Delphic Oracle. However, it resonated with Socratic philosophy, which emphasized self-knowledge as essential to wisdom and virtue.
6. “He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature.”
   This saying reflects Socrates’ belief in the value of simplicity and self-sufficiency, which he practiced in his own life.
7. “There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
   Socrates believed that knowledge was the key to virtue and that ignorance was the root of all wrongdoing. This idea is central to his philosophy, where the pursuit of knowledge is linked to living a moral life.

These sayings encapsulate Socrates’ emphasis on wisdom, self-reflection, and the pursuit of truth, all of which are foundational to his philosophical legacy.

Logan Act Violation Query

Platohagel: Could you talk about the Logan act and whether Victor Orban visiting a private citizen constitutes a breaking of the act?

Socrates: The Logan Act, enacted in 1799, prohibits unauthorized citizens from negotiating with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. Its purpose is to prevent unauthorized individuals from undermining the government’s foreign policy.

To analyze whether Viktor Orbán visiting a private citizen in the U.S. constitutes a violation of the Logan Act, one must consider the specifics of the interaction. Here are key points:

1. Nature of the Interaction: The Logan Act targets negotiations. If Orbán’s visit involved discussions intended to influence U.S. foreign policy, and the private citizen was acting without government authorization, it might raise concerns under the Logan Act. However, merely meeting and talking without the intent to influence policy would likely not qualify.
2. Authorization: If the private citizen had some form of authorization from the U.S. government, the visit would not be a violation.
3. Enforcement History: The Logan Act has rarely been enforced, with no successful prosecutions since its inception. This means even if an interaction technically violates the act, it might not lead to legal consequences.

Given these points, whether Viktor Orbán’s visit constitutes a violation depends on the specifics of the meeting, the intent behind it, and whether the private citizen was authorized to engage in such discussions.

Benjamin Netanyahu

Platohagel : Benjamin Netanyahu meeting with a private citizen regarding Israel fight in Gaza constitute a violation of the Logan act?

Socrates: To determine whether Benjamin Netanyahu’s meeting with a private citizen regarding Israel’s fight in Gaza could constitute a violation of the Logan Act, we must consider several factors:

1. Nature of the Discussion: The Logan Act prohibits unauthorized individuals from engaging in negotiations with foreign governments that aim to influence U.S. foreign policy. If Netanyahu’s meeting with the private citizen involved discussions or actions intended to alter or influence U.S. policy toward Israel or Gaza, it might raise concerns under the Logan Act.
2. Authorization: If the private citizen involved in the meeting was authorized by the U.S. government to engage in such discussions, the Logan Act would not apply. The key element here is whether the individual had any official capacity or authorization to negotiate or discuss policy matters on behalf of the U.S. government.
3. Intent: The act primarily targets those who intend to interfere with or influence U.S. foreign policy. If the meeting was purely informational or social, with no intent to impact U.S. policy, it likely wouldn’t violate the Logan Act.
4. Enforcement: Historically, the Logan Act has been rarely enforced. Even if an action technically violates the act, it may not lead to prosecution, given the complexities of proving intent and unauthorized negotiation.

In summary, whether Netanyahu’s meeting with a private citizen regarding the situation in Gaza constitutes a Logan Act violation depends on the specifics of the interaction, particularly the intent behind it and whether the private citizen had any government authorization. If the meeting was informal and did not involve attempts to influence U.S. policy, it likely would not violate the Logan Act. However, if it involved unauthorized attempts to negotiate or alter U.S. foreign policy, it could raise legal questions, even if prosecution under the act remains unlikely.

See Also: https://youtu.be/Ogxm79m9a5M?si=TvHIiObPwPNgH3CZ

Understanding Rationality Explained

Platohagel: What is a Rational person?

Socrates: A rational person is one who consistently uses reason and logical thinking to make decisions and form beliefs. This person prioritizes evidence, coherence, and consistency in their thought process, aiming to avoid biases, emotions, or impulsive judgments that might lead to error. They seek to understand the underlying principles of a situation and weigh the potential consequences of their actions carefully. Rationality, in this sense, involves not only the use of logic but also the willingness to question assumptions, revise beliefs in light of new evidence, and consider the perspectives of others.

Platohagel: Is there a way to logistically arrive at a rational perspective that has become self evident?

Socrates: Rational logic can jump to belief without becoming self-evident when certain gaps in reasoning are filled by assumptions, intuitions, or external influences that aren’t fully scrutinized. This can happen in several ways:

1. Assumptions Taken as Given: Sometimes, premises or assumptions are accepted without thorough examination. If these assumptions are flawed or not self-evident, the conclusion derived from them may be logical within the framework of those assumptions but not necessarily rational or self-evident.
2. Incomplete Reasoning: In some cases, reasoning may be based on incomplete information or insufficient analysis. This can lead to a belief that seems rational but lacks the depth needed to be self-evident. The logic might be sound within a limited context but fail when considered in a broader or more comprehensive context.
3. Cognitive Biases: Cognitive biases can cause individuals to favor certain conclusions that align with their pre-existing beliefs or desires, even if the logical steps leading to those conclusions are weak. The belief might seem rational to the person, but it isn’t self-evident because it’s influenced by biases rather than pure reason.
4. Heuristics and Intuition: People often rely on heuristics—mental shortcuts that simplify decision-making. While heuristics can lead to beliefs that seem rational, they aren’t necessarily self-evident because they bypass the deeper analytical process that would otherwise reveal any underlying flaws or assumptions.
5. Social and Cultural Influences: Beliefs can be influenced by social, cultural, or ideological factors that shape how one interprets evidence or constructs logical arguments. A belief formed under such influences may seem rational within a specific cultural or social context but isn’t self-evident in a universal sense.
6. Complex or Abstract Concepts: In some cases, logic deals with concepts that are highly abstract or complex. The leap from logical reasoning to belief may occur because the full implications of the reasoning process are difficult to grasp or because the reasoning process is opaque to those not fully versed in the subject matter. Here, the belief may not be self-evident because the underlying reasoning isn’t easily accessible or understood.
7. Pragmatic Acceptance: Sometimes, a belief is accepted as rational based on its practical utility rather than its self-evidence. In this case, the logic behind the belief is oriented toward achieving a particular goal or outcome, and the belief is adopted because it works, even if it isn’t self-evident.

In all these cases, the leap to belief occurs without the belief being self-evident because the belief is built on foundations that haven’t been fully examined or because external factors, rather than pure reason, drive the conclusion. Rationality requires not just logical consistency but also thoroughness in examining the premises, evidence, and potential biases involved.

Platohagel: Can intuition form the basis of the image that is portrayed in a persons mind.

Socrates: Yes, intuition can indeed form the basis of the image that is portrayed in a person’s mind. Intuition is the ability to understand or know something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. This intuitive process often involves the synthesis of past experiences, emotions, and subconscious knowledge, all of which can create mental images or impressions that feel compelling and true, even if they are not fully articulated or rationally explained.

Here’s how intuition can shape the image in a person’s mind:

1. Subconscious Processing: Intuition often draws on vast amounts of information stored in the subconscious mind. These are things you have learned or experienced but may not consciously remember. When faced with a situation, your mind can quickly process this information and form an image or impression without you being fully aware of the steps involved. This image might guide your understanding or decision-making.
2. Pattern Recognition: The human mind is highly skilled at recognizing patterns, often on an unconscious level. Intuition can create a mental image based on patterns it detects from past experiences. For example, someone might get a “gut feeling” about a person or situation because their mind has unconsciously recognized similarities to previous experiences, forming an intuitive image of what might happen next.
3. Emotional Influence: Intuition is closely linked with emotions. Emotions can color and shape the images that appear in your mind, making them more vivid or persuasive. An intuitive feeling about something might come with a strong mental image, influenced by how you feel about the situation.
4. Immediacy and Certainty: Intuitive images often come with a sense of immediacy and certainty, even if you can’t explain why. This is because intuition bypasses the slower, more deliberate processes of conscious reasoning. The image formed intuitively might feel more like a sudden realization or a flash of insight.
5. Creativity and Innovation: Intuition can also play a role in creative thinking. When people are brainstorming or trying to solve complex problems, intuitive insights can lead to the formation of new ideas or mental images that are not strictly the result of logical reasoning but rather a synthesis of different thoughts and experiences.

While intuition can be powerful, it’s important to remember that it is not infallible. The images or impressions formed by intuition can be influenced by biases, emotions, or incomplete information. Therefore, while intuition can provide valuable insights, it’s often wise to complement it with rational analysis to ensure that the images in your mind are accurate representations of reality.

Platohagel: Would we not consider Justice to be an amiable process to get to what is self evident to render judgement? We might say we withhold judgement until the process of rationality has been followed?

Socrates: Indeed, we could consider justice to be an amiable process, one that seeks to arrive at what is self-evident or as close to the truth as possible before rendering judgment. Justice, in its ideal form, requires the suspension of judgment until a thorough and rational process has been followed. This ensures that any conclusions or judgments made are not only fair but also grounded in reason and evidence.

Here’s how this concept plays out:

1. Deliberative Process: Justice involves a deliberate and careful process of gathering and examining evidence, hearing all sides, and weighing the facts. This process is meant to strip away biases, emotions, and preconceived notions, allowing what is self-evident or most reasonable to emerge.
2. Withholding Judgment: In the pursuit of justice, one withholds judgment until all relevant information has been considered. This ensures that the final judgment is not rushed or based on incomplete understanding. By withholding judgment, the process respects the complexity of truth and the difficulty of arriving at it.
3. Rationality as a Guide: Rationality serves as a guiding principle in the pursuit of justice. It helps ensure that the process is systematic, consistent, and aligned with principles of fairness. Rational deliberation is essential for discerning what is just, and it requires a commitment to following logical steps and evidence wherever they lead.
4. Self-Evident Truths: Ideally, the outcome of a just process should align with what is self-evident, meaning that the judgment should be clear, reasonable, and convincing to those who understand the reasoning behind it. This doesn’t mean the truth was obvious from the start, but that after careful examination, it becomes apparent and indisputable.
5. Integrity of the Process: Justice is not just about the final judgment but also about the integrity of the process leading to it. A just process requires transparency, fairness, and a willingness to revise judgments if new evidence or reasoning emerges. This ongoing commitment to rationality helps ensure that justice remains dynamic and responsive to the truth.
6. Moral and Ethical Considerations: Justice also involves moral and ethical considerations, which must be balanced with rational analysis. These considerations guide how we interpret the evidence and apply the law or principles in question. The goal is to arrive at a judgment that is not only rationally sound but also ethically right.

In essence, justice can be seen as the pursuit of self-evident truths through a rational and ethical process. By withholding judgment until this process is complete, we honor the complexity of truth and strive to render judgments that are fair, reasonable, and aligned with the deepest principles of justice.

Euclid

Socratica Studios

Maybe you can identify the section from which this picture is taken from. The picture seen in the Fresco painted by Raphael, is entitled the School of Athens in  heading above?:)

All those who have written histories bring to this point their account of the development of this science. Not long after these men came Euclid, who brought together the Elements, systematizing many of the theorems of Eudoxus, perfecting many of those of Theatetus, and putting in irrefutable demonstrable form propositions that had been rather loosely established by his predecessors. He lived in the time of Ptolemy the First, for Archimedes, who lived after the time of the first Ptolemy, mentions Euclid. It is also reported that Ptolemy once asked Euclid if there was not a shorter road to geometry that through the Elements, and Euclid replied that there was no royal road to geometry. He was therefore later than Plato's group but earlier than Eratosthenes and Archimedes, for these two men were contemporaries, as Eratosthenes somewhere says. Euclid belonged to the persuasion of Plato and was at home in this philosophy; and this is why he thought the goal of the Elements as a whole to be the construction of the so-called Platonic figures. (Proclus, ed. Friedlein, p. 68, tr. Morrow)

Geometry Expressed, Hidden In Ancient Design

If the late character of our sources may incite us to doubt the authenticity of this tradition, there remains that, in its spirit, it is in no way out of character, as can be seen by reading or rereading what Plato says about the sciences fit for the formation of philosophers in book VII of the Republic, and especially about geometry at Republic, VII, 526c8-527c11. We should only keep in mind that, for Plato, geometry, as well as all other mathematical sciences, is not an end in itself, but only a prerequisite meant to test and develop the power of abstraction in the student, that is, his ability to go beyond the level of sensible experience which keeps us within the "visible" realm, that of the material world, all the way to the pure intelligible. And geometry, as can be seen through the experiment with the slave boy in the Meno (Meno, 80d1-86d2), can also make us discover the existence of truths (that of a theorem of geometry such as, in the case of the Meno, the one about doubling a square) that may be said to be "transcendant" in that they don't depend upon what we may think about them, but have to be accepted by any reasonable being, which should lead us into wondering whether such transcendant truths might not exist as well in other areas, such as ethics and matters relating to men's ultimate happiness, whether we may be able to "demonstrate" them or not.See: Frequently Asked Questions about Plato by Bernard SUZANNE

Academy was a suburb of Athens, named after the hero Academos or Ecademos. The site was continuously inhabited from the prehistoric period until the 6th century A.D. During the 6th century B.C., one of the three famous Gymnasiums of Athens was founded here. Moreover, it is recorded that Hippias, the son of Peisistratos, built a circuit wall, and Cimon planted the area with trees which were destroyed by Sulla in 86 B.C. In 387 B.C. Plato founded his philosophical school, which became very famous due to the Neoplatonists, and remained in use until A.D. 526, when it was finally closed down by emperor Justinian.

I relay some thoughts I have had with regard to an emergent process.  I think it incorporates a view I have about the geometries hidden in nature that are designed toward expression of some of the historical understanding of this need to apply "fundamentals."  These constructs are in  ephemeral states of existence as if expressed as an idea.  As idea, these become matter orientated views as "a method of approach."

 Learning to identify the schematic usage of geometrical design as an inherent basis of expression, was to understand that intent had this basic design as a malleable feature in the nature of probabilistic outcomes of experience?

In order for us to understand this "world view" as applied to the nature of the reality, it is assumed such fundamentals(all basic models) reveal some of the ways in which we will adopt the reality as expressed?  We are active participants regardless aren't we,  which might mean, there is still some room with which to form, "a more comprehensive view of the type of fundamentals" necessary for such a world view?

IN that sense, the basis of geometrical exploration, as a set of possible outcomes, was to see schematically, that such usage was necessary in understanding what Einstein was able to reveal once adopting, Grossmann's realizations.

By pointing toward Riemann's realization, and this underlying framework of experience as a possible outcome of a universal expression, showed the way to this projector type of geometry, as a dynamical view of this "gravitation inclusion," as a process toward forming that intent.

So of course historical analysis became an important function for me so as to look at the way in which such a historical school,  might have used this method in order to attain the desired student. One who would  face the continuing  search for  such fundamentals. Of course nothing said this is "set in stone." I am laughing right now.  I will use such a structure so as to show you this method.

This was revealed to me in the statement of Hameroff and Penrose, as a process in the cyclic expression of the universe. Using, geometrical design. Looking at emergence as geometrical underlying process of the universe in expression. This was to see an underlying format of constructive phases of experience.

So, not by the idea that such singularity as the nature of such expression, but that by such intent, is an outcome toward the nature of the geometry as dynamical views of as, K minus or plus, as metric aversions of the dynamical process of out comes as the universe in such expression?

While I cannot say for certain, these are the tendencies of Plato, in my thoughts it was for him, to seek and define reality in pursuance of foundation building blocks. Although too, it may not  be true to today's world, it was sufficient then to describe reality as it contained the "ancientness of belief" about an astronomical processes that existed in nature.

While again it may not have been the best way, it reveals some deeper thinking about alchemist methods as they were adopted and transformed. This  in Greek culture of the philosophers arose from one generation to the next.  It then became a method by which one could internalize transformation.

Such model building was to build the ideological,  by the discussing of these analogical methods to purify oneself of the grossness of nature embedded within the material world?

 How much finer such methods then  but to distillate the process for what begins as to it's beginning,  exists as a some, " Prima Materia."  This then became matter defined as the grossness of our experiences,  could lead from any asymmetrical notion of this symmetry in the beginning?

Logic is the art of thinking; grammar, the art of inventing symbols and combining them to express thought; and rhetoric, the art of communicating thought from one mind to another, the adaptation of language to circumstance.Sister Miriam Joseph

The quadrivium comprised the four subjects, or arts, taught in medieval universities after the trivium. The word is Latin, meaning "the four ways" or "the four roads". Together, the trivium and the quadrivium comprised the seven liberal arts.[1] The quadrivium consisted of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy. These followed the preparatory work of the trivium made up of grammar, logic (or dialectic, as it was called at the times), and rhetoric. In turn, the quadrivium was considered preparatory work for the serious study of philosophy and theology.

So while it may be fleeting that such a design may indicate the unification of the Trivium with the Quadrivium, such a completion was inherently significant not just for the presence of adaptation in any school.

Intuitive knowledge is free from partiality or dualism; it has overcome the extremes of stressing subject or object. It is the vision of a world-synthesis, the experience of cosmic consciousness where the Infinite is realised not only conceptually but actually. (p233) Lama Anagarika Govinda, Creative Meditation and Multidimensional Consciousness, 1977

In my thoughts such a design was necessary as  to impose a "model design" that indicated that such adaption in Plato's school amounted to something so solid? A method.

Such integration was necessary so as to realize that such a model built was to survive not only the objective world as a solid,  but was also to realize that such unification could exist within ourselves. Bringing together this liberal arts as a measure of success was to delineate each subjective facet of experience so as to realize that one could transcend the material world, by such realizations which may have took one back to the beginning.

While in this sense artistic expressionism of Raphael's picture in the heading of this site, such a realization was to signify that such a pursuat was necessary and represented the coming together of Aristotle and Plato in the very centre of that world. It required us to become closely associated to the "beginning point" of what was allowed in terms of what is self evident as an inductive deductive process of unfolding.

This was our internal teacher/student dialogue that becomes necessary in order to proceed with dealing with the  truths as they come to us in our realizations.

It was the uniqueness of the individual to which although each truth revealed it's successes with regard to that individual's development, in the larger scheme of things,  it asked us to proceed with a method so as to deal with the science of life? To be inquisitive, but grounded in this teacher/student relationship so as to move forward and experience the world.

See Also:

• Music in Plato's Academy

Where is Our Starting Point?

	"The end he (the artist) strives for is something else than a perfectly executed print. His aim is to depict dreams, ideas, or problems in such a way that other people can observe and consider them." - M.C. Escher

• The Nobel Prize in Physics 1914 Max von Laue

• Quasicrystal: Prof. Dan Shechtman

Can you trace the patterns in nature toward matter manifestations?

	To them, I said, the truth would be literally nothing but the shadows of the images. -Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

The idea here is about how one's observation and model perceptions arises from some ordered perspective. Some use a starting point as an assumption of position. Do recognize "the starting point" in the previous examples?

 Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?"

The effective realization that particle constructs are somehow smaller windows of a much larger perspective fails to take in account this idea that I am expressing as a foundational approach to that starting point.

If you do not go all the way toward defining of that "point of equilibrium" how are you to understand how information is easily transferred to the individual from a much larger reality of existence? One would assume information is all around us? That there are multitudes of pathways that allow us to arrive at some some probability density configuration as some measure of an Pascalian ideal.

Of course there are problems with this in terms of our defining a heat death in individuals?

That's not possible so one is missing the understanding here about equilibrium. I might have said we are positional in terms of the past and the future with regard to memory and the anticipated future? How is that heat death correlated? It can't.

So you have to look for examples in relation to how one may arrive at that beginning point. Your theory may not be sufficiently dealing with the information as it is expressed in terms of your approach to the small window?

There are mathematical inspections here that have yet to be associated with more then discrete functions of reality as expressive building blocks of interpretation. The basic assumption of discrete function still exists in contrast to continuity of expression. This is the defining realization in assuming the model that MBT provides. I have meet the same logic in the differences of scientific approach toward the definition of what is becoming?

On the one hand, a configuration space as demonstrated by Tom that is vastly used in science. On the other, a recognition of how thick in measure viscosity is realized and what the physics is in this association. Not just the physical manifestation of, but of what happens when equilibrium is reached. Hot or very cold. Temperature, is not a problem then?

See my problem is that I can show you levitation of objects using superconductors but I cannot produce this in real life without that science. Yet, in face of that science I know that something can happen irregardless of what all the science said, so I am looking as well to combining the meta with the physical to realize that such a conditions may arise in how we as a total culture have accepted the parameters of our thinking.

So by dealing with those parameters I too hoped to see a cultural shift(paradigm and Kuhn) by adoption of the realization as we are with regard to the way in which we function in this reality. So if your thinking abut gravity how is this possible within the "frame work" to have it encroach upon our very own psychological makeup too?

First Alcibiades

Papyrus fragment of Alcibiades I, section 131.c-e.

The First Alcibiades or Alcibiades I (Ancient Greek: Ἀλκιβιάδης αʹ) is a dialogue featuring Alcibiades in conversation with Socrates. It is ascribed to Plato, although scholars are divided on the question of its authenticity.

Contents 1 Content 2 Authenticity 3 Dating 4 References 5 Bibliography 6 External links

Content

In the preface Alcibiades is described as an ambitious young man who is eager to enter public life. He is extremely proud of his good looks, noble birth, many friends, possessions and his connection to Pericles, the leader of the Athenian state. Alcibiades has many admirers but they have all run away, afraid of his coldness. Socrates was the first of his admirers but he has not spoken to him for many years. Now the older man tries to help the youth with his questions before Alcibiades presents himself in front of the Athenian assembly. For the rest of the dialogue Socrates explains the many reasons why Alcibiades needs him. By the end of Alcibiades I, the youth is much persuaded by Socrates' reasoning, and accepts him as his mentor.

The first topic they enter is the essence of politics – war and peace. Socrates claims that people should fight on just grounds but he doubts that Alcibiades has got any knowledge about justice. Prodded by Socrates’ questioning Alcibiades admits that he has never learned the nature of justice from a master nor has discovered it by himself .

Alcibiades suggests that politics is not about justice but expediency and the two principles could be opposed. Socrates persuades him that he was mistaken, and there is no expediency without justice. The humiliated youth concedes that he knows nothing about politics.

Later Alcibiades says that he is not concerned about his ignorance because all the other Athenian politicians are ignorant. Socrates reminds him that his true rivals are the kings of Sparta and Persia. He delivers a long lecture about the careful education, glorious might and unparalleled richness of these foreign rulers. Alcibiades has got cold feet which was exactly the purpose of Socrates’ speech.

After this interlude the dialogue proceeds with further questioning about the rules of society. Socrates points to the many contradictions in Alcibiades’ thoughts. Later they agree that man has to follow the advise of the famous Delphic phrase: gnōthi seautón meaning know thyself. They discuss that the "ruling principle" of man is not the body but the soul. Somebody's true lover loves his soul, while the lover of the body flies as soon as the youth fades. With this Socrates proves that he is the only true lover of Alcibiades. "From this day forward, I must and will follow you as you have followed me; I will be the disciple, and you shall be my master", proclaims the youth. Together they will work on to improve Alcibiades' character because only the virtuous has the right to govern. Tyrannical power should not be the aim of individuals but people accept to be commanded by a superior.

In the last sentence Socrates expresses his hope that Alcibiades will persist but he has fears because the power of the state "may be too much" for both of them.
 

Authenticity

 

In antiquity Alcibiades I was regarded as the best text to introduce one to Platonic philosophy, which may be why it has continued to be included in the Platonic corpus since then. The authenticity of the dialogue was never doubted in antiquity. It was not until 1836 that the German scholar Friedrich Schleiermacher argued against the ascription to Plato.^[1] Subsequently its popularity declined. However, stylometrical research supports Plato's authorship,^[2] and some scholars have recently defended its authenticity.^[3]

Dating

 

Traditionally, the First Alcibiades has been considered an early dialogue. Gerard Ledger's stylometric analysis supported this tradition, dating the work to the 390's.^[4] Julia Annas, in supporting the authenticity of Rival Lovers, saw both dialogues as laying the foundation for ideas Plato would later develop in Charmides.

A later dating has also been defended. Nicholas Denyer suggests that it was written in the 350's BC, when Plato, back in Athens, could reflect on the similarities between Dionysius II of Syracuse (as we know him from the Seventh Letter) and Alcibiades—two young men interested in philosophy but compromised by their ambition and faulty early education.^[5] This hypothesis requires skepticism about what is usually regarded as the only fairly certain result of Platonic stylometry, Plato's marked tendency to avoid hiatus in the six dialogues widely believed to have been composed in the period to which Denyer assigns First Alcibiades (Timaeus, Critias, Sophist, Statesman, Philebus, and Laws).^[6]


R.S. Bluck, although unimpressed by previous arguments against the dialogue's authenticity, tentatively suggests a date after the end of Plato's life, approximately 343/2 BC, based especially on "a striking parallelism between the Alcibiades and early works of Aristotle, as well as certain other compositions that probably belong to the same period as the latter."^[8]

References

 

1. ^ Denyer (2001): 15.
2. ^ Young (1998): 35-36.
3. ^ Denyer (2001): 14-26.
4. ^ Young (1998)
5. ^ Denyer (2001): 11-14. Cf. 20-24
6. ^ Denyer (2001): 23 n. 19
7. ^ Pamela M. Clark, "The Greater Alcibiades," Classical Quarterly N.S. 5 (1955), pp. 231-240
8. ^ R.S. Bluck, "The Origin of the Greater Alcibiades," Classical Quarterly N.S. 3 (1953), pp. 46-52

 

Bibliography

 

• Denyer, Nicholas, "introduction", in Plato, Alcibiades, Nicholas Denyer (ed.) (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001): 1-26.
• Foucault, Michel, The Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1981–1982 (New York: Picador, 2005).
• Young, Charles M., "Plato and Computer Dating", in Nicholas D. Smith (ed.), Plato: Critical Assessments volume 1: General Issues of Interpretation (London: Routledge, 1998): 29-49.

 

External links

 

• Greek text: Greek Wikisource, HODOI (with French translation and concordance)
• First Alcibiades, trans. Benjamin Jowett (Project Gutenberg)

Justified true belief

 Before Gettier, an historical account brings one up to date?

Euler diagram representing a definition of knowledge.

Justified true belief is one definition of knowledge that states in order to know that a given proposition is true, one must not only believe the relevant true proposition, but one must also have justification for doing so. In more formal terms, a subject S knows that a proposition P is true if, and only if:

1. P is true
2. S believes that P is true, and
3. S is justified in believing that P is true

The 'justified true belief' theory of knowledge suffered a significant setback with the discovery of Gettier problems, situations in which the above conditions were met but that many philosophers disagree that anything is known.^[1] Robert Nozick suggested a clarification of "justification" which he believed eliminates the problem: the justification has to be such that were the justification false, the knowledge would be false.

  See also

Theory of justification

Validity

Gettier problem

 References

^ Chisholm, Roderick (1982). "Knowledge as Justified True Belief". The Foundations of Knowing. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 0-8166-1103-3.

*** 

Knowledge is a familiarity with someone or something, which can include facts, information, descriptions, or skills acquired through experience or education. It can refer to the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. It can be implicit (as with practical skill or expertise) or explicit (as with the theoretical understanding of a subject); and it can be more or less formal or systematic.^[1] In philosophy, the study of knowledge is called epistemology, and the philosopher Plato famously defined knowledge as "justified true belief." However no single agreed upon definition of knowledge exists, and there are numerous theories to explain it. The following quote from Bertrand Russell's "Theory of Knowledge" illustrates the difficulty in defining knowledge. "The question how knowledge should be defined is perhaps the most important and difficult of the three with which we shall deal. This may seem surprising: at first sight it might be thought that knowledge might be defined as belief which is in agreement with the facts. The trouble is that no one knows what a belief is, no one knows what a fact is, and no one knows what sort of agreement between them would make a belief true. Let us begin with belief."

Knowledge acquisition involves complex cognitive processes: perception, communication, association and reasoning; while knowledge is also said to be related to the capacity of acknowledgment in human beings.^[2]

Contents   1 Theories of knowledge 2 Communicating knowledge 3 Situated knowledge 4 Partial knowledge 5 Scientific knowledge 6 Religious meaning of knowledge 7 See also 8 References

 Theories of knowledge

Robert Reid, Knowledge (1896). Thomas Jefferson Building, Washington, D.C.

See also: Epistemology

“	The eventual demarcation of philosophy from science was made possible by the notion that philosophy's core was "theory of knowledge," a theory distinct from the sciences because it was their foundation… Without this idea of a "theory of knowledge," it is hard to imagine what "philosophy" could have been in the age of modern science.	”
	— Richard Rorty, Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature

The definition of knowledge is a matter of on-going debate among philosophers in the field of epistemology. The classical definition, described but not ultimately endorsed by Plato,^[3] specifies that a statement must meet three criteria in order to be considered knowledge: it must be justified, true, and believed. Some claim that these conditions are not sufficient, as Gettier case examples allegedly demonstrate. There are a number of alternatives proposed, including Robert Nozick's arguments for a requirement that knowledge 'tracks the truth' and Simon Blackburn's additional requirement that we do not want to say that those who meet any of these conditions 'through a defect, flaw, or failure' have knowledge. Richard Kirkham suggests that our definition of knowledge requires that the evidence for the belief necessitates its truth.^[4]
In contrast to this approach, Wittgenstein observed, following Moore's paradox, that one can say "He believes it, but it isn't so", but not "He knows it, but it isn't so".^[5] He goes on to argue that these do not correspond to distinct mental states, but rather to distinct ways of talking about conviction. What is different here is not the mental state of the speaker, but the activity in which they are engaged. For example, on this account, to know that the kettle is boiling is not to be in a particular state of mind, but to perform a particular task with the statement that the kettle is boiling. Wittgenstein sought to bypass the difficulty of definition by looking to the way "knowledge" is used in natural languages. He saw knowledge as a case of a family resemblance. Following this idea, "knowledge" has been reconstructed as a cluster concept that points out relevant features but that is not adequately captured by any definition.^[6]

 Communicating knowledge

Symbolic representations can be used to indicate meaning and can be thought of as a dynamic process. Hence the transfer of the symbolic representation can be viewed as one ascription process whereby knowledge can be transferred. Other forms of communication include observation and imitation, verbal exchange, and audio and video recordings. Philosophers of language and semioticians construct and analyze theories of knowledge transfer or communication.^{[citation needed]}
While many would agree that one of the most universal and significant tools for the transfer of knowledge is writing (of many kinds), argument over the usefulness of the written word exists however, with some scholars skeptical of its impact on societies. In his collection of essays Technopoly Neil Postman demonstrates the argument against the use of writing through an excerpt from Plato's work Phaedrus (Postman, Neil (1992) Technopoly, Vintage, New York, pp 73). In this excerpt the scholar Socrates recounts the story of Thamus, the Egyptian king and Theuth the inventor of the written word. In this story, Theuth presents his new invention "writing" to King Thamus, telling Thamus that his new invention "will improve both the wisdom and memory of the Egyptians" (Postman, Neil (1992) Technopoly, Vintage, New York, pp 74). King Thamus is skeptical of this new invention and rejects it as a tool of recollection rather than retained knowledge. He argues that the written word will infect the Egyptian people with fake knowledge as they will be able to attain facts and stories from an external source and will no longer be forced to mentally retain large quantities of knowledge themselves (Postman, Neil (1992) Technopoly, Vintage, New York,pp 74).
Andrew Robinson also highlights, in his work The Origins of Writing, the possibility for writing to be used to spread false information and therefore the ability of the written word to decrease social knowledge (Robinson, Andrew (2003) The Origins of Writing in Crowley and Heyer (eds) Communication in History: Technology, Culture, Society, Boston pp 34). People are often internalizing new information which they perceive to be knowledge but in reality fill their minds with false knowledge.
The above points are moot in the modern world. Verbal communication lends itself to the spread of falsehoods much more so than written, as there is no record of exactly what was said or who originally said it (usually neither the source nor the content can be verified). Gossip and rumors are common examples. As to value of writing, the extent of human knowledge is now so great that it is only possible to record it and to communicate it through writing. Major libraries today can have millions of books of knowledge (in addition to works of fiction). It is only recently that audio and video technology for recording knowledge have become available and the use of these still requires replay equipment and electricity. Verbal teaching and handing down of knowledge is limited to those few who would have contact with the transmitter person - far too limited for today's world. Writing is still the most available and most universal of all forms of recording and transmitting knowledge. It stands unchallenged as mankind's primary technology of knowledge transfer down through the ages and to all cultures and languages of the world.

 Situated knowledge

Situated knowledge is knowledge specific to a particular situation.^[7]
Some methods of generating knowledge, such as trial and error, or learning from experience, tend to create highly situational knowledge. One of the main attributes of the scientific method is that the theories it generates are much less situational than knowledge gained by other methods.^{[citation needed]} Situational knowledge is often embedded in language, culture, or traditions.^{[citation needed]}
Knowledge generated through experience is called knowledge "a posteriori", meaning afterwards. The pure existence of a term like "a posteriori" means this also has a counterpart. In this case that is knowledge "a priori", meaning before. The knowledge prior to any experience means that there are certain "assumptions" that one takes for granted. For example if you are being told about a chair it is clear to you that the chair is in space, that it is 3D. This knowledge is not knowledge that one can "forget", even someone suffering from amnesia experiences the world in 3D. See also: a priori and a posteriori.^{[citation needed]}

 Partial knowledge

One discipline of epistemology focuses on partial knowledge. In most cases, it is not possible to understand an information domain exhaustively; our knowledge is always incomplete or partial. Most real problems have to be solved by taking advantage of a partial understanding of the problem context and problem data, unlike the typical math problems one might solve at school, where all data is given and one is given a complete understanding of formulas necessary to solve them.^{[citation needed]}
This idea is also present in the concept of bounded rationality which assumes that in real life situations people often have a limited amount of information and make decisions accordingly.

Scientific knowledge

The development of the scientific method has made a significant contribution to how knowledge is acquired. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning and experimentation.^[8] The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.^[9] Science, and the nature of scientific knowledge have also become the subject of Philosophy. As science itself has developed, knowledge has developed a broader usage which has been developing within biology/psychology—discussed elsewhere as meta-epistemology, or genetic epistemology, and to some extent related to "theory of cognitive development".  

Sir Francis Bacon, "Knowledge is Power"

Note that "epistemology" is the study of knowledge and how it is acquired. Science is “the process used everyday to logically complete thoughts through inference of facts determined by calculated experiments." Sir Francis Bacon was critical in the historical development of the scientific method; his works established and popularized an inductive methodology for scientific inquiry. His famous aphorism, "knowledge is power", is found in the Meditations Sacrae (1597).^[10]
Until recent times, at least in the Western tradition, it was simply taken for granted that knowledge was something possessed only by humans — and probably adult humans at that. Sometimes the notion might stretch to (ii) Society-as-such, as in (e.g.) "the knowledge possessed by the Coptic culture" (as opposed to its individual members), but that was not assured either. Nor was it usual to consider unconscious knowledge in any systematic way until this approach was popularized by Freud.^[11]
Other biological domains where "knowledge" might be said to reside, include: (iii) the immune system, and (iv) in the DNA of the genetic code. See the list of four "epistemological domains":   Popper, (1975);^[12] and Traill (2008:^[13] Table S, page 31)—also references by both to Niels Jerne.
Such considerations seem to call for a separate definition of "knowledge" to cover the biological systems. For biologists, knowledge must be usefully available to the system, though that system need not be conscious. Thus the criteria seem to be:

• The system should apparently be dynamic and self-organizing (unlike a mere book on its own).
• The knowledge must constitute some sort of representation of "the outside world",^[14] or ways of dealing with it (directly or indirectly).
• Some way must exist for the system to access this information quickly enough for it to be useful.

Scientific knowledge may not involve a claim to certainty, maintaining skepticism means that a scientist will never be absolutely certain when they are correct and when they are not. It is thus an irony of proper scientific method that one must doubt even when correct, in the hopes that this practice will lead to greater convergence on the truth in general.^[15]

 Religious meaning of knowledge

In many expressions of Christianity, such as Catholicism and Anglicanism, knowledge is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.^[16]
The Old Testament's tree of the knowledge of good and evil contained the knowledge that separated Man from God: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil…" (Genesis 3:22)

In Gnosticism divine knowledge or gnosis is hoped to be attained. In Thelema knowledge and conversation with one's Holy Guardian Angel is the purpose of life.^{[citation needed]}
विद्या दान (Vidya Daan) i.e. knowledge sharing is a major part of Daan, a tenet of all Dharmic Religions.^[17] Hindu Scriptures present two kinds of knowledge, Paroksh Gyan and Prataksh Gyan. Paroksh Gyan (also spelled Paroksha-Jnana) is secondhand knowledge: knowledge obtained from books, hearsay, etc. Prataksh Gyan (also spelled Prataksha-Jnana) is the knowledge borne of direct experience, i.e., knowledge that one discovers for oneself.^[18] Jnana yoga ("path of knowledge") is one of three main types of yoga expounded by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita. (It is compared and contrasted with Bhakti Yoga and Karma yoga.)

In Islam, knowledge (Arabic: علم, ʿilm) is given great significance. "The Knowing" (al-ʿAlīm) is one of the 99 names reflecting distinct attributes of God. The Qur'an asserts that knowledge comes from God (2:239) and various hadith encourage the acquisition of knowledge. Muhammad is reported to have said "Seek knowledge from the cradle to the grave" and "Verily the men of knowledge are the inheritors of the prophets". Islamic scholars, theologians and jurists are often given the title alim, meaning "knowledgable".^{[citation needed]}

In Jewish tradition, knowledge (Hebrew: דעת da'ath) is considered one of the most valuable traits a person can acquire. Observant Jews recite three times a day in the Amidah "Favor us with knowledge, understanding and discretion that come from you. Exalted are you, Existent-One, the gracious giver of knowledge." The Tanakh states, "A wise man gains power, and a man of knowledge maintains power", and "knowledge is chosen above gold".

 See also

• Analytic-synthetic distinction
• Descriptive knowledge
• Epistemic logic
• Explicit knowledge
• Figurative system of human knowledge
• Intelligence
• Intuition as an unconscious form of knowledge.
• Knowledge discovery
• Knowledge engineering
• Knowledge relativity
• Knowledge retrieval
• Learning
• Metaknowledge
• Philosophical skepticism
• Procedural knowledge
• Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge
• Tacit knowledge
• Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities
• Wisdom

 References

1. ^ http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1261368#m_en_us1261368
2. ^ Stanley Cavell, "Knowing and Acknowledging," Must We Mean What We Say? (Cambridge University Press, 2002), 238–266.
3. ^ In Plato's Theaetetus, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss three definitions of knowledge: knowledge as nothing but perception, knowledge as true judgment, and, finally, knowledge as a true judgment with an account. Each of these definitions is shown to be unsatisfactory.
4. ^ http://www.centenary.edu/attachments/philosophy/aizawa/courses/epistemologyf2008/kirkham1984.pdf
5. ^ Ludwig Wittgenstein, On Certainty, remark 42
6. ^ Gottschalk-Mazouz, N. (2008): „Internet and the flow of knowledge“, in: Hrachovec, H.; Pichler, A. (Hg.): Philosophy of the Information Society. Proceedings of the 30. International Ludwig Wittgenstein Symposium Kirchberg am Wechsel, Austria 2007. Volume 2, Frankfurt, Paris, Lancaster, New Brunswik: Ontos, S. 215–232. http://www.uni-stuttgart.de/philo/fileadmin/doc/pdf/gottschalk/ngm-internetflow-2008.pdf
7. ^ Haraway, Donna 1998. Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.
8. ^ "[4] Rules for the study of natural philosophy", Newton 1999, pp. 794–6, from the General Scholium, which follows Book 3, The System of the World.
9. ^ scientific method, Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
10. ^ "Sir Francis Bacon - Quotationspage.com". Retrieved 2009-07-08.
11. ^ There is quite a good case for this exclusive specialization used by philosophers, in that it allows for in-depth study of logic-procedures and other abstractions which are not found elsewhere. However this may lead to problems whenever the topic spills over into those excluded domains—e.g. when Kant (following Newton) dismissed Space and Time as axiomatically "transcendental" and "a priori" — a claim later disproved by Piaget's clinical studies. It also seems likely that the vexed problem of "infinite regress" can be largely (but not completely) solved by proper attention to how unconscious concepts are actually developed, both during infantile learning and as inherited "pseudo-transcendentals" inherited from the trial-and-error of previous generations. See also "Tacit knowledge".
    • Piaget, J., and B.Inhelder (1927 / 1969). The child's conception of time. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.
    • Piaget, J., and B.Inhelder (1948 / 1956). The child's conception of space. Routledge & Kegan Paul: London.
12. ^ Popper, K.R. (1975). "The rationality of scientific revolutions"; in Rom Harré (ed.), Problems of Scientific Revolution: Scientific Progress and Obstacles to Progress in the Sciences. Clarendon Press: Oxford.
13. ^ http://www.ondwelle.com/OSM02.pdf
14. ^ This "outside world" could include other subsystems within the same organism—e.g. different "mental levels" corresponding to different Piagetian stages. See Theory of cognitive development.
15. ^ http://philosophybites.com/2007/12/barry-stroud-on.html
16. ^ "Part Three, No. 1831". Catechism of the Catholic Church. Retrieved 2007-04-20.
17. ^ Knowledge Donation is the primary donation
18. ^ Swami Krishnananda. "Chapter 7". The Philosophy of the Panchadasi. The Divine Life Society. Retrieved 2008-07-05. 

***

The Theaetetus (Greek: Θεαίτητος) is one of Plato's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge. The framing of the dialogue begins when Euclides tells his friend Terpsion that he had written a book many years ago based on what Socrates had told him of a conversation he'd had with Theaetetus when Theaetetus was quite a young man. (Euclides also notes that he'd had to go back to Socrates to ask some more questions about the speeches due to his spotty recollection of the account.)
Euclides is prompted to share his book when Terpsion wonders where he'd been: Euclides, who apparently can usually be found in the marketplace of Megara, was walking outside of the city and had happened upon Theaetetus being carried from Corinth to Athens with a case of dysentery and a minor war wound; Euclides remarks that Socrates had made some uncanny predictions about Theaetetus needing to rise to fame. Euclides' book is read aloud to the two men by a slave boy in the employ of Euclides.
In this dialogue, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss three definitions of knowledge: knowledge as nothing but perception, knowledge as true judgment, and, finally, knowledge as a true judgment with an account. Each of these definitions is shown to be unsatisfactory. The conversation ends with Socrates' announcement that he has to go to court to answer to the charges that he has been corrupting the young and failing to worship Athenian Gods.

Contents   1 Midwife to knowledge 2 Philosophical labor 3 Examining the offspring 4 Abusing the "orphan" of Protagoras 5 The absent-minded philosopher 6 The men of flux 7 The mind as a bird cage 8 Socrates and the Jury 9 Knowledge as judgement with an account 10 Conclusion 11 Significant references in the dialogue 12 Footnotes 13 References 14 Selected secondary literature 15 External links

 Midwife to knowledge

Socrates asks Theodorus if he knows of any geometry students who show particular promise. Theodorus assures him that he does, but that he does not want to over-praise the boy, lest anyone suspect he is in love with him. He says that the boy, Theaetetus, is a young Socrates look-alike, rather homely, with a snub-nose and protruding eyes. The two older men spot Theaetetus rubbing himself down with oil, and Theodorus reviews the facts about him, that he is intelligent, virile, and an orphan whose inheritance has been squandered by trustees.
Socrates tells Theaetetus that he cannot make out what knowledge is, and is looking for a simple formula for it. Theaetetus says he really has no idea how to answer the question, and Socrates tells him that he is there to help. Socrates says he has modelled his career after his midwife mother. She delivered babies and for his part, Socrates can tell when a young man is in the throes of trying to give birth to a thought.

 Philosophical labor

Socrates thinks that this idea must be identical in meaning, if not in actual words, to Protagoras' famous maxim "Man is the measure of all things." Socrates wrestles to conflate the two ideas, and stirs in for good measure a claim about Homer being the captain of a team of Heraclitan flux theorists. Socrates dictates a complete textbook of logical fallacies to the bewildered Theaetetus. When Socrates tells the child that he (Socrates) will later be smaller without losing an inch because Theaetetus will have grown relative to him, the child complains of dizziness (155c). In an often quoted line, Socrates says with delight that "wonder (thaumazein) belongs to the philosopher". He admonishes the boy to be patient and bear with his questions, so that his hidden beliefs may be yanked out into the bright light of day.

 Examining the offspring

When Socrates sums up what they have agreed on so far, it becomes problematic that knowledge is sense perception, for Socrates raises the question that "When the same wind blows, one of us feels cold and the other not?" As a result he introduces the idea of Heraclitean flux to act as a defense to the wind objection. Heracliteanism shows that "Nothing is in itself just one thing...Everything is in a process of coming to be". Thus as there is no fixed meaning in things, but they draw their meaning in a referential difference to other things, the wind objection can be incorporated into Theaetetus's claim that "Knowledge is sense perception". As a result they can then continue their inquiry as to the truth of this claim. It is important to note that the Heraclitean doctrine of Flux is not the same as the Protagorean doctrine. The Protagorean is radical truth relativism whereas the Heraclitean is radical reality relativism. It serves as a supporting theory to the Protagorean interpretation of Theaetetus's claim, in order that they might fully inquire as to the validity of this premise. Socrates admits that it is unfortunate that Protagoras is dead and cannot defend his idea against people such as himself. He says that the two of them are "trampling on his orphan" (164e) but the charge remains.

 Abusing the "orphan" of Protagoras

Since Protagoras is dead, Socrates puts himself in the sophist's shoes and tries to do him the favor of defending his idea (166a-168c). Socrates continues to find more ways to misinterpret and misrepresent him - "mistreat his orphan." Putting words in the dead sophist's mouth, Socrates declares that Protagoras asserts with his maxim that all things are in motion and whatever seems to be the case, is the case for the perceiver, whether the individual or the state.

At the end of his speech, Socrates admits to Theodorus that if Protagoras were alive to defend his idea, he would have done a far better job than Socrates has just done. Theodorus tells Socrates that he must be kidding, that he has come to the task with boyish vigor. Theodorus does not claim to be a disciple of Protagoras, but never contradicts Socrates repeated assertions that he is a friend of Protagoras. Socrates admits he has used the child's timidity to aid him in his argument against the doctrine of Protagoras (168d).
Socrates, not at all certain that he has not misrepresented Protagoras in making each man the measure of his own wisdom, presses Theodorus on the question of whether any follower of Protagoras (himself included) would contend that nobody thinks anyone else is wrong (170c). Theodorus proves to be helpless against Socrates' confusions. He agrees that Protagoras concedes that those who disagree with him are correct (171a). In making Protagoras a complete epistemological relativist, where every person's individual perceptions are his reality and his truth, both Socrates and Theodorus paint Protagoras as maintaining an absurd position. Socrates says that if Protagoras could pop his head up through the ground as far as his neck, he would expose Socrates as a speaker of nonsense, sink out of sight, and take to his heels (171d).

 The absent-minded philosopher

Socrates then proceeds to explain why philosophers seem clumsy and stupid to the common lot of humanity. Socrates explains that philosophers are open to mockery because they are not concerned about what interests most people: they could not care less about the scandals in their neighbor's house, the tracing of one's ancestry to Heracles, and so on. Instead their thinking wanders around contemptuously, measuring the depths of the earth and contemplating the stars above the sky. It is here that Socrates draws the classic portrait of the absent-minded intellectual who cannot make his bed or cook a meal (175e). Socrates adds a big bifurcation to this speech, saying that there are only two kinds of lives to be lived: a divinely happy one, lived by righteous philosophers or a godless, miserable one, such as most people live (176-177). Socrates admits this was a digression that threatens to drown his original project, which was to define knowledge. Theodorus, the old geometer, tells Socrates that he finds this sort of thing easier to follow than his earlier arguments.

 The men of flux

Socrates says that the men of flux, like Homer and Heraclitus, are really hard to talk to because you can't pin them down. When you ask them a question, he says, they pluck from their quiver a little aphorism to let fly at you, and as you try to figure that one out, they wing another one at you. They leave nothing settled either in discourse, or in their own minds. Socrates adds that the opposite school of thought, that teaches of the "immovable whole" is just as hard to talk to (181a,b). Socrates says he met the father of the idea, Parmenides, when he was quite young, but does not want to get into another digression over it.

 The mind as a bird cage

Perhaps the most delightful talk in the dialogue comes near the end, when Socrates compares the human mind to a birdcage. He says it is one thing to possess knowledge and another to have it about one, on hand, as it were (199a). Socrates says that as a man goes hunting about in his mind for knowledge of something, he might grab hold of the wrong thing. He says that mistaking eleven for twelve is like going in for a pigeon and coming up with a dove (199b). Theaetetus joins in the game, and says that to complete the picture, you need to envision pieces of ignorance flying around in there with the birds. But if this is the case, how would you be able to distinguish between the birds representing real knowledge and the ones representing false ones? Are there other birds that represent this type of knowledge? Socrates comes to the conclusion that this is absurd and therefore he discards the birdcage analogy.

 Socrates and the Jury

After discarding the bird-cage analogy, Socrates and Theaetetus return to the definition of knowledge as 'true judgement' (200e). This, Theaetetus argues, is true because it is 'free from mistakes' (200e). However Socrates introduces an example of a jury in the law-courts, being persuaded of an opinion by a lawyer. This persuasion is not the same as knowing the truth, as all is produced is 'conviction' in judging whatever the lawyers want (201a). Although Theaetetus hopes it is possible the lawyer will be able to 'persuade' the jury of the truth (201b), Socrates is unsatisfied as if they are justly persuaded, they will have true knowledge. However, in Socrates' belief, they cannot make a correct judgement as they would not have true knowledge (201c). With this conflict, Socrates decides that true judgement and knowledge must be different things.

 Knowledge as judgement with an account

After distinguishing between knowledge and true judgement, Theaetetus recalls being told that true judgement 'with an account (logos) equates to knowledge (201d). Things without an account are 'unknowable', while things with an account are 'knowable'.
Socrates responds by telling of a dream, in which he overheard people talking of primary elements (201e). These primary elements can only be named, they cannot be thought of as existing or not - he gives examples of words like 'itself, or that, each, alone or this' (202a). While they can be added to other words, they by themselves are just a name. When these elements are added together, Socrates says that a 'complex' is formed (202b). The primary elements are 'unaccountable and unknowable, but perceivable' while the complexes are 'knowable and expressible' and so can be objects of 'true judgement' (202b). He concludes his dream by agreeing with Theaetetus that knowledge is 'true judgement with an account' (202c).
However, Socrates exposes some difficulties by examining letters. He takes the first two letters of his name, S and O to wonder if the syllable 'So' is knowable while the individual letters are not (203b-d). Theaetetus finds the idea strange, so Socrates deduces that in order to know the syllable, the letters must be known first (203e). Socrates proposes that the syllable can be a 'single form' produced from the letters. With this in mind, Socrates considers whether the 'sum' and the 'whole' are the same (204a). Theaetetus initially says they are not, but changes his mind in confusion when Socrates leads him through maths and the different ways of expressing the number six (204c-205b). After agreeing this, Socrates returns to the subject of syllables and letters to conclude from Theaetetus' answers that syllables are different from letters and cannot contain letters (205b). Theaetetus admits this idea is ridiculous (205c). Socrates returns to talking about elements and complexes to propose that they are in the same class, as they have 'no parts and [are] a single form' (205d).

Socrates sums up this reversal by remarking that if anyone tries to tell them the complex is knowable and expressable while the element is the opposite, 'we had better not listen to him' (205e). He cites the example of a musician distinguishing individual notes (conceded to be elements of music) to propose that elements are 'much more clearly known'(206b).
Socrates proposes an account to be 'making one's thought apparent vocally by means of words and verbal expressions' (206d). However, he wonders if that is so, everyone will be able to make judgement 'with an account' as they can all (except for the deaf and dumb) vocalize and express opinions on matters (206e). Socrates examines it further by suggesting that a man who can vocalize his judgement must be able to make reference to the primary elements of the subject (207a). Giving an example of defining a wagon by its individual parts (207a), agreement is reached that an account is 'going through a thing element by element'(207d). Socrates questions Theaetetus by drawing on his learning of how to write, and the idea that if you misplace individual elements (letters) of a name, that does not mean you have knowledge of it (208a). This finishes Socrates' second definition of an account as 'the way to the whole through the elements' (208c). The third definition Socrates offers is 'being able to tell some mark by which the object you are asked about differs from all other things' (208c), giving the example that the Sun is distinct for its brightness. However, this definition of an account fails as by getting to know the differentness of an object, you have to acquire knowledge about it. Thus the answer to the initial question 'What is knowledge' would be heavily circuitous - correct judgement accompanied by 'knowledge' of the differentness, which Socrates admits is 'silly' (210a).

 Conclusion

Socrates concludes the dialogue by announcing that all the two have produced is mere "wind-eggs" and that he must be getting on now to the courthouse to face his trial being brought against him by Meletus.

 Significant references in the dialogue

In this dialogue, Socrates refers to Epicharmus of Kos as "the prince of Comedy" and Homer as "the prince of Tragedy", and both as "great masters of either kind of poetry".^{[note 1]} This is significant because it is one of the very few extant references in greater antiquity (Fourth century BC) to Epicharmus and his work. Another reference is in Plato's Gorgias dialogue.

 Footnotes

1. ^ "Summon the great masters of either kind of poetry- Epicharmus, the prince of Comedy, and Homer of Tragedy", Theaetetus, by Plato, section §152e.^[1] (translation by Benjamin Jowett^[2]). There is some variability in translation of the passage. Words like "king", "chief", "leader", "master" are used in the place of "prince" in different translations. The basic Greek word in Plato is "akroi" from "akros" meaning topmost or high up. In this context it means "of a degree highest of its kind" or "consummate" (cf. Liddell & Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon).^[3]

 References

1. ^ Theaetetus, by Plato, section §152e.
2. ^ Theaetetus, by Plato, section §152e. translation by Benjamin Jowett
3. ^ Liddell & Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon

 Selected secondary literature

• Cornford, F.M., "Plato's Theory of Knowledge: The Theaetetus and The Sophist". Dover, 2003 [first published in 1935].
• Desjardins, Rosemary, "The Rational Enterprise: Logos in Plato's Theaetetus", SUNY, 1990.
• Doull, James (1977). "A Commentary on Plato's Theaetetus". Dionysius I: 5–47.
• Klein, Jacob, "Plato's Trilogy: Theaetetus, The Sophist and the Statesman". University of Chicago Press, 1977.
• Benardete, S., Commentary to Plato's Theaetetus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984.
• Burnyeat, M.F., The Theaetetus of Plato (with a translation by Jane Levett). Hackett, 1990.
• Campbell, L., The Theaetetus of Plato. Oxford University Press, 1883.
• Heidegger, M., The Essence of Truth. Continuum, 2002.

 External links

• The full text is available from Project Gutenberg or the Perseus Project in both Greek and English.
• Plato on Knowledge in the Theaetetus entry by Timothy Chappell in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
• Cornford, F.M., "Plato's Theory of Knowledge" at googlebooks
• A Discussion of Theaetetus' Contributions to Euclid's Elements