Similarities Between Socrates And Theaetetus

Theaetetus is a dialogue written by Plato that concerns the nature of knowledge and what knowledge is. In this work, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss knowledge and its definition, which the character of Theaetetus tries to put into. He says that knowledge is perception, knowledge is true judgment, and, finally, knowledge is true judgment with an account. Socrates finds each of these undesirable and tells Theaetetus that he benefits from discovering what he doesn’t know and that he should approach the topic in the future. One of Socrates’ more enjoyable discussions with the pupil is the idea of the mind being an aviary.
Socrates, having shot down two Theatetus’ explanations what knowledge is, asks him if he knows the explanation of the verb “to know”, which Socrates explains as “having knowledge”. But he tells Theaetetus he wants to change it to mean “to possess knowledge”. Confused at his distinction between the two which seems to be the same, Theaetetus asks why. Socrates explains that while the man does possess the birds, he does not have them because they are not in his hand. “...we
maintain that it is impossible for anyone not to possess that which he has possession of, and thus it never happens that he does not know something he knows” (Plato 199a). He tells Theaetetus to think of the mind as an aviary full of birds of all different kinds. When a person is born, the aviary is empty and slowly gains birds, or knowledge, as time goes on. The owner has them, meaning that he has the ability to enter the aviary and catch them. The birds represent pieces of knowledge. Giving a bird to someone else is the same as teaching them, stocking the aviary is learning, and catching a particular bird is to remember something you’ve learned and hypothetically know.
He also shows the possibility of false judgment: when you enter the aviary in order to catch a pigeon but instead catch a dove.
Although the aviary’s distinction between potential and actual knowledge improves our understanding of the nature of “justified true belief”, it is rejected by Socrates because it explains false judgment as the interchange of pieces of knowledge. Theaetetus if you were willing to place in the aviary not just knowledge, but also ignorance, the question of false judgment would not be answered adequately. False judgment could be the grabbing of a piece of ignorance. As Socrates remarks, the ignorance can be confused with knowledge in the same way knowledge can be confused with itself. It’s interesting that Socrates points out that that addition wouldn’t help this argument. But it is also interesting that the teacher himself is discarding his own
analogy.
To suggest that the mind is like an aviary is intriguing. While the whole brain deals with various tasks, like the senses and nerve traffic, the mind is part of the invisible, transcendent world of thoughts, memory, feelings, and imagination. Moreover, the mind is not confined to the brain. Socrates suggests at the beginning of his metaphor that the aviary is empty at birth and slowly gains birds. Is a baby’s mind really empty? Does a baby not have feelings when first emerging into the world? A baby knows pain the minute it takes its first breath and recognizes that this not a pleasant feeling. Over the baby’s first days, it can recall this feeling from the aviary. The mind is not empty at birth, but simply unknown the baby; the baby cannot uncover the full potential of learning and only recognizes a few of the “birds”.
Also, to recognize that the bird which you hold is the knowledge you are looking for would depend on the intelligence level of the aviary owner; in the definition of knowledge being “justified true belief”, the person must recognize that the knowledge they have is true. It’s hard to call something, which lacks justification, knowledge without hesitation. If justified true belief is not knowledge, then what is? It’s quite hard to provide a justification for all the things we know.
Brain development differs from mind development. The mind is a more complex than the brain, and can transcend beyond the brain and body. Knowledge can be passed onto other people, this keeping the knowledge and that person’s mind alive, even if they are no longer alive and breathing. It’s hard to fully understand the complication of the mind. And perhaps even a definition of knowledge is unreachable.