Critical interpretation in academic discourse

Knowledge Is Not Sense-Perception

Plato relies in debating the true nature of knowledge in the same manner as his tutor, Socrates, assuming and arguing that knowledge was not only about the perception of our senses, as many pf the Ancient philosophers sustained. In this sense, in his work Theaetetus, Plato argues that knowledge can be objective, debating the nature and problems of knowledge.

Attacking Protagoras's belief that "man is the measure of all things," Plato, through the voice of Socrates, claims that perception is only part of knowledge, a mere component of a much larger process. The reason for this is that perception does not cover many of the key truths our existence is guided by. Additionally, rational analysis plays another great deal in the way knowledge is formed. So, in this sense, Plato seems to see knowledge as the sum of different objective experiences and this is why sense-perception is considered but a small part of the entire process.

In my opinion, the 21st century, the global environment in which we live offer enough challenges to be able to refer to whatever is possible in order to obtain a solution. After modernism and post-modernism, however, the notion of truth and knowledge is as diffuse as ever and it is hardly likely that we can rely on objective rationalism any more, as many of the issues happening around us bear too much the irrational stigmata.

On the other hand, we should admit that many of Plato's beliefs, especially some of the ideas mentioned here above, are still quite actual for anybody who can still believe in rationalism as the utmost way in finding the truth. Indeed, in this sense and applied to rational realities nowadays, Plato's answers can still work.

1) Plato seems to place sense-perception in last place on a knowledge component list. Historically speaking, does it seem that mankind followed through on his ideas?

In my opinion, sense perception has always played an important role in the evolution of mankind. Unfortunately, sense-perception was mostly to blame for permitting religion to impose silly ideas, based on tricks that priests performed in rituals. However, even in the 21st century, many philosophers still believed that individual perception can give way to reaching the truth. We can mention here currents such relativism.

2) How does Socrates choose to explain why knowledge cannot be only perception?

Socrates uses an interesting and amusing paradigm. He argues that if knowledge is only perception, than no man is wiser than any other. In this sense, the role of teachers and philosophical tutors is futile, because they would have none else really to teach.

3) Would you agree with the role Plato gives to sense-perception?

In my opinion, relativism is the answer here. Two things are obvious: knowledge is not only perception (and I agree with this) and perception plays a part in knowledge (and Plato agrees to this). The discussion, then, is only about what role perception actually plays in knowledge.