FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2011920908> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2011920908 endingPage "199" @default.
• W2011920908 startingPage "171" @default.
• W2011920908 abstract "Why Is There a Discussion of False Belief in the Theaetetus? HUGH H. BENSON IN PLATO'S THEAETETU$, Theaetetus and Socrates attempt to define what knowledge is. Theaetetus offers the following four definitions. First, he suggests that knowledge is geometry, astronomy, calculation, shoemaking and the crafts of the other craftsmen. Second, he suggests that knowledge is perception; third, that knowledge is true belief; and finally, that knowledge is true belief with an account. After getting clear what the particular definitions amount to, Socrates refutes each of them, so that the dialogue ends in a typically Socratic fashion: both Theaetetus and Socrates claim to be at a loss concerning what knowledge is. Socrates' response to Theaetetus' third definition, the definition that knowledge is true belief (which I will call (KTB)), however, cannot help but stand out. For, rather than following this definition with a clarification and then a refutation, Socrates instead raises the following questions which he says have been bothering him for a long time. (Tl) what is the state [of believing falsely] in us and how does it come about? (187d3-4) He hesitates to consider these questions here, but after being reminded by Theaetetus that he had just a moment ago made the point that there was no hurry in discussions such as these, decides that this is not a bad moment to consider them. It is not until thirteen pages later that Socrates returns explicitly to the third definition, (KTB), and when he does, it only takes him one page to refute it. The question that I want to address in this essay is why these questions get considered here. Why are the problems associated with false belief raised between Theaetetus' proposal that knowledge is true belief 087b--c ) and Socrates' refutation of that proposal (2ood-~olc)? What role, that is, do these thirteen pages (187c-~ood) play in the structure of the dialogue 's argument? [1711 172 JOURNAL OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY 30:2 APRIL 1992 It seems to me that there have been basically three types of answers to this question. First, the most common answer is that this passage is simply a digression . Cornford, for example, writes that: Instead of developing and criticizing Theaetetus' new suggestion, Socrates here goes back to a point that arose in the Defense of Protagoras.' According to Cornford, prior to 187b Plato has only offered an ad hominem argument against the Protagorean doctrine that no one can believe falsely. At x88c-2ood, Plato attempts to put forward a more general argument for the possibility of false belief. Unfortunately, this argument is doomed to fail for the same reason Plato's attempt to define knowledge is doomed to fail, viz., Plato's unwillingness to appeal to Forms in the Theaetetus. On Cornford's view, then, there are no philosophical reasons for this discussion of false belief to occur subsequent to Theaetetus' proposal that knowledge is true belief. There may, of course, be stylistic or dramatic reasons, but philosophically the passage is simply a digression. A second view has been suggested by McDowell. He, too, apparendy thinks this passage is essentially a digression, but, unlike Cornford, suggests a philosophical explanation for its position. According to McDowell, it is plausible that in order to be able to understand Theaetetus' new account of knowledge as being true judgement, we must be able to make sense of the notion of false judgement as well; and the discussion which follows deals with difficulties in making sense of the notion of false judgement. McDowell recognizes, however , that Socrates' and Theaetetus' inability to make sense of false belief is not taken by Plato to suffice for the rejection of Theaetetus' proposal. A third view has been more recently suggested by Fine.s She suggests that there is a particular model of knowledge, which she calls the acquaintance model of knowledge, that supports (KTB). In the false belief passage, she suggests, Plato offers an argument to the effect that if such a model of knowledge is accepted, false belief is impossible. But, since, according to Plato, false belief is possible, it follows that the acquaintance model should not be accepted . Thus, on Fine's view, Plato should..." @default.
• W2011920908 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2011920908 creator A5019556969 @default.
• W2011920908 date "1992-01-01" @default.
• W2011920908 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2011920908 title "Why Is There a Discussion of False Belief in the Theaetetus?" @default.
• W2011920908 cites W1504059386 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W1512457525 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W1582504509 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W1978200517 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W2030207699 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W2048373891 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W2055049809 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W2089414168 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W2093450050 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W2123379030 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W2501345667 @default.
• W2011920908 cites W2799162287 @default.
• W2011920908 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/hph.1992.0023" @default.
• W2011920908 hasPublicationYear "1992" @default.
• W2011920908 type Work @default.
• W2011920908 sameAs 2011920908 @default.
• W2011920908 citedByCount "9" @default.
• W2011920908 countsByYear W20119209082013 @default.
• W2011920908 countsByYear W20119209082015 @default.
• W2011920908 countsByYear W20119209082016 @default.
• W2011920908 countsByYear W20119209082021 @default.
• W2011920908 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2011920908 hasAuthorship W2011920908A5019556969 @default.
• W2011920908 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2011920908 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2011920908 hasConcept C2779259174 @default.
• W2011920908 hasConcept C2801541 @default.
• W2011920908 hasConceptScore W2011920908C111472728 @default.
• W2011920908 hasConceptScore W2011920908C138885662 @default.
• W2011920908 hasConceptScore W2011920908C2779259174 @default.
• W2011920908 hasConceptScore W2011920908C2801541 @default.
• W2011920908 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2011920908 hasLocation W20119209081 @default.
• W2011920908 hasOpenAccess W2011920908 @default.
• W2011920908 hasPrimaryLocation W20119209081 @default.
• W2011920908 hasRelatedWork W194185133 @default.
• W2011920908 hasRelatedWork W1975342471 @default.
• W2011920908 hasRelatedWork W1978257559 @default.
• W2011920908 hasRelatedWork W2131397209 @default.
• W2011920908 hasRelatedWork W2280383046 @default.
• W2011920908 hasRelatedWork W2477638480 @default.
• W2011920908 hasRelatedWork W2500932921 @default.
• W2011920908 hasRelatedWork W4288742436 @default.
• W2011920908 hasRelatedWork W599467210 @default.
• W2011920908 hasRelatedWork W2176871817 @default.
• W2011920908 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W2011920908 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2011920908 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2011920908 magId "2011920908" @default.
• W2011920908 workType "article" @default.