Socrates And Theaetetus

The Theaetetus is a dialogue, written by Plato, which is mainly concerned with the nature of knowledge. Socrates and Theaetetus discuss three different types of knowledge: knowledge as perception, knowledge as true judgment, and knowledge as true judgment with an account. The three definitions given by each were unacceptable for Socrates and a final definition is not given. In the end, Socrates quickly left the conversation to attend court for a charge pressed against him. This dialogue is known for its leading epistemology, which is one of Plato’s principal philosophical concentrations and is believed to have been written around 369 BC. This would place the dialogue in the middle of others. The order of platonic dialogues has long been argued
In both, it is mentioned that Socrates met Parmenides when he was very young. Given the factual evidence that would’ve been almost impossible, Charles Kahn argues. This means that Plato is referencing the dialogue instead. He also argues that the critical examination of this main theory in the Parmenides is very important. The Theaetetus does not directly reference the Forms and the Sophist examines it from an outside perspective. It could be argued that Plato was trying to start over with his main theory in metaphysics and epistemology. Kahn also argues that “… as a consequence of the Parmenides’ criticism, at least two features of the classical theory must be abandoned: namely the language of participation… and the recognition of something like immanent forms… The latter notion, taken at face value, leads to the conception of two separate worlds, a conception that makes the theory pointless.” In this, neither the Sophist of the Theaetetus tackles the problem of participation. In the Parmenides, there was a new philosophical method introduced, to follow through from not only hypothesis but from denial, because without discourse, there is no knowledge. This is seen in the
One specific example is in the “two patterns established in reality.” The other example is in the introduction to the common elements of thought. This is basically an exhaustive list of the forms. This list includes: being, not being, same, different, similar, dissimilar, one, two, odd, even, good, bad. These last two are models of the more classical theory, but the others are seen in the Sophist. The dialogue comes extremely close to recognizing forms as thoughts, but does not completely get there Kahn argues. The Sophist, in turn, takes this into consideration. If the Theaetetus and the Sophist are at the beginning of restructuring Plato’s metaphysics after Parmenides, the Timaeus brings it all together, Kahn argues. It brings the Forms and phenomena together and then deals with the problem of participation. It also considers everything else that has been missing and deals with the internal problems of each