The Thaeatetus

[monolith94]

Ok, so it's a dialogue between Socrates and Thaeatetus, right? And it's all about what, exactly, knowledge is. I'm reading it for class, and it's pretty interesting.

So what is the purpose of this thread? Well, I suppose that we, too, could discuss the idea of what it is to know something.

However, more pointedly, I must ask agathon for assistance. For, you see, my philosphy professor is quite hot, and I want to say something smart and urbane to impress my awesomeness upon her. Go philosophy!

[DarkCloud]

Say her eyes are as beautiful as Socrates' Wisdom

[monolith94]

Errr... wouldn't that kind of be an insult? Because one of Socrates' fundamental points is that no one is wise.

[Sava]

I had a hot philosophy teacher too...

but she smoked like 2 packs a day

don't want ash and tar on my knob

[Ted Striker]

Nerdy hot chicks.

[Ecthy]

My uni doesn't featuer too many too hot teachers, but there's this one around 30 working at the chair for military history. Her name's Gundula though

[Agathon]

Re: The Thaeatetus

Originally posted by monolith94
Ok, so it's a dialogue between Socrates and Thaeatetus, right? And it's all about what, exactly, knowledge is. I'm reading it for class, and it's pretty interesting.

So what is the purpose of this thread? Well, I suppose that we, too, could discuss the idea of what it is to know something.

However, more pointedly, I must ask agathon for assistance. For, you see, my philosphy professor is quite hot, and I want to say something smart and urbane to impress my awesomeness upon her. Go philosophy!

A good start would be to spell Theaetetus correctly.

If you want to look smart, here's a start. At the beginning of the first attempt it is claimed that knowledge must be of ?? ?? and be ???????. In English this is usually translated as "knowledge must be (cognition) of what is (or what exists) and be infallible (cognition) of that.

Each of the candidate definitions explores different interpretations of each of these criteria. For example true judgement is judgement of what is the case and is infallible in a sense because it must always be true. The problem is that it can be true when someone doesn't realize that it is, so this means that merely being correct is not the right sense of "infallible" for knowledge.

Similarly, the perception theory tries to rethink "what exists" as "what exists for me" and provides infallibility through sensation. Unfortunately that doesn't work either, since sensation isn't a form of cognition according to Plato.

This is the key to understanding the dialogue. There are basically two major interpetations. The modern one, in which Plato is rejecting his earlier Form-based account of knowledge in favour of something new or is expressing a new kind of sceptical philosophy. The second is the Ancient interpretation, in which the purpose of the dialogue is to destroy alternatives to the Form based account.

A chapter of my dissertation deals with this question. I can send you that as long as you promise not to copy it. It's not the best chapter as it makes use of a lot of other work in order to set up the later chapters of the dissertation which contain my own stuff.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by monolith94
Errr... wouldn't that kind of be an insult? Because one of Socrates' fundamental points is that no one is wise.

irony Mono... irony...

This makes me think of that bad movie Harvard Man where the guy is screwing his phil prof.

You're at Grinnell, right? Something leads me to think that my heretical views would go over better there than at some other places.

[monolith94]

This reminds me of that bad movie Soul Man where the guy takes tanning pills so he can get the african-american scholarship...

Before you send me anything on it, I should probably reread it actually... I think a couple of things might've gone over my head.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by monolith94
This reminds me of that bad movie Soul Man where the guy takes tanning pills so he can get the african-american scholarship...

Before you send me anything on it, I should probably reread it actually... I think a couple of things might've gone over my head.

Read it thirty times. It is still a tough nut to crack.

[monolith94]

I think three or four should be good for the semester... Honestly, I can't take too much time away from my scheduled "The Golden Ass" rereading time.

Have you ever read the golden ass? It's a beautiful masterwork of literature, in my opinion.

[Agathon]

Yeah, I read it with an agnostic Jewish poststructuralist. That was an interesting time.

The Theaetetus is one of the best dialogues, and certainly the one with the most contemporary value. It's also one of those in which Plato screws with the reader the most, and that makes it one of my favourites.

Who's teaching you?

[monolith94]

Her name is Jennifer Johnson... I don't know how close the international philosphy professor circuit would be though...

I liked the part where Socrates was talking to Theaetetus about people who see the world and think that that is all there is, and how small their lives must be... I gotta go back and find that quote and put it in my sig.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by Ecthy
My uni doesn't featuer too many too hot teachers, but there's this one around 30 working at the chair for military history. Her name's Gundula though

I'd hit it

[Agathon]

Originally posted by monolith94
Her name is Jennifer Johnson... I don't know how close the international philosphy professor circuit would be though...

I liked the part where Socrates was talking to Theaetetus about people who see the world and think that that is all there is, and how small their lives must be... I gotta go back and find that quote and put it in my sig.

Hmmm.... she wouldn't have happened to do her doctorate at Berkeley and to have spent some time visiting here in Toronto, would she...?

It's just that I know a Jennifer Johnson. In fact I have managed to unwittingly and mortally insult her husband both times I met him.