False Opinions In Plato's 'Theaetetus'

Tianci Wang (300112921)
Final Exam Essay
PHI 3375A
Prof. F.J. Gonzalez
April 25th, 2023 In Plato's dialogue "Theaetetus," Socrates attempts to define knowledge and distinguish it from mere opinion. Socrates makes several failed attempts to explain false opinions. First, Socrates proposes "about all things, together or individually, that we must either know them or not know them" (188a). There are three possibilities on this basis. The first is that the things he knows are not these things, but other things that he knows. The second is that the things he does not know are other things he does not know. The third is that the things he knows are things he does not know, or that the things he does not know are things he does know. All three of

And if we can only think about things that can be discussed, then the object of our thoughts can only be things that exist because "it is not possible to judge what is not" (189b). The object of judgment cannot be both the being that makes the false judgment and the being that is the object of thought because "[false] judgment...is something different from judging things which are not" (189b). Since when a person takes something that does not exist as something that exists, he is sure to make a false judgment, such as Socrates is flying. Thus, if it is impossible to think of things that do not exist, how can one make judgments about things that do not exist, whether right or false and so the false judgments are once again refuted? On the other hand, Socrates' discourse in other areas also deserves to be rethought. First, there is the reflection on dreams or diseases that “when it is disputed even whether this is real life or a dream…our periods of sleeping and waking are of equal length, and as in each period the soul contends that the beliefs of the moment are preeminently true” (158d). Whether awake or in a

Visitor presented “the sophist…denied that there has come to be or is such a thing as falsity. For he denied that anyone either thinks or says that which is not, on the ground that that which is not never in any way has a share in being” (260c-d). False Speech really comes out of that combination of verbs and names. It turns out that complete speech is saying something; it's not really saying anything. It does not simply say what is not false, but what is, but what it says is different from what it is. For example, "I am sitting" is true, and "I am flying" is false. But specifically, how is "I am flying" false? First, “false speech really and truly arises from that kind of putting together of verbs and names” (263d). The guest emphasized the importance of recognizing that the essence of thinking is "subject + predicate", the subject plus modifier. And the prerequisite for judging whether it is true or not is fixing the subject and judging the existence of the modifier. For example, if "I am flying", it is obvious that this "I" refers to myself, and the declarative sentence does not consider the question of whether the subject exists or not; next, the "sitting me" is typing and writing and influencing the world, while the "flying me" is different from the "sitting me" that really influences the world, so it is different from existence and non-existence, so "I am flying" does not exist, and the person who thinks