Upload to Google Docs

The first chapter of Plato: A Very Short Introduction, titled A jury’s problem, author Julia Annas starts by describing a person who was set up and robbed and a member of the jury is convinced this did indeed happen; but did it? She asks how do you know? Is it a case of where the prosecutor is trying to convince the jury because it’s the truth or a way to influence the jury by the art of persuasion? As a result, you’re not quite sure.

            This issue is raised in Plato’s dialogue Theaetetus. In it, Socrates uses a metaphor of a midwife assisting in birth by comparing his extraction of ideas from people and exams these ideas for reason. Using the thoughts of what other philosophers regard as knowledge, he shows fault in the knowledge perceived by Theaetetus. Theaetetus believed if you knew something you couldn’t be wrong and that knowing was acquired by a series of steps – first perceiving, then having true belief, and finally being able to defend this belief. All of this fail gives credence to Socrates belief of arguing only against the position of others. In the closing of this section, Socrates is asking Theaetetus “If a jury has been persuaded fairly about something in which you could only have knowledge if you were an eyewitness, not otherwise, while they judge from what they heard and get a true belief, haven’t they judged without knowledge?” If knowledge is different from true belief, how is a jury to know if the plaintiff was robbed?

            This leads to the question of what is required for knowledge. Annas tells us if one is able to be influenced by persuasion, he lacks knowledge. This method raises doubt on whether the knowledge that can be obtained by persuasion is true or a false belief. Is second-hand knowledge trustworthy and if we have to rely on first-hand knowledge are we limiting ourselves? Knowledge requires that we acquire it ourselves because “nobody else can know things for you on your behalf! Knowledge requires that you acquire the relevant belief for yourself.”

            Getting back to the jury, there are two reasons why Plato believes the jury’s belief is not equal to knowledge. One is persuasion is not guaranteed to be true and the other is that knowledge can only be acquired first hand. Socrates in the dialogue makes two points. One is there’s no way a jury can be persuaded, because of the circumstances of emotion and the constraint of time which is needed to fully extract and gain the knowledge, the other is there is no way of conveying ones’ beliefs no matter how carefully one attempts to do so. This was a head-scratcher for me as they seem to conflict.

            The author gives us two possibilities for this either Plato is confused or Socrates is not defending a position, but arguing and showing this conflict, in which the latter being the logical choice. She also tells us in the dialogue Meno, knowledge is teachable and goes on to explain how geometric proofs were taught to a student even though some of the steps were counter-intuitive until he was able to understand and eventually teach them himself.

            This chapter concludes with giving us the awareness that Plato’s writing supports one’s position while attacking others, Socrates draws us into arguments in which he easily wins, and that knowledge is conveyable, but requires first-hand experience in which he shows in Meno.

Questions:

In Plato’s opinion, what is the difference between knowledge and perception?