Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Revista Archai (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/8766 |
Resumo: | In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates often contrasts opinion (doxa) with knowledge (episteme), as a fallible form of cognition against an infallible one. He seems to suggest that by attaching to a true opinion a ‘calculation of cause’ or some sort of account, we can convert it into knowledge. Many scholars and epistemologists have taken this suggestion as evidence that the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief traces back to Plato. In this paper, I claim that it is inaccurate to suppose that Plato foresaw the tripartite analysis of knowledge of the Contemporary Epistemology. Focusing on the theory of recollection and the distinction between true opinion and knowledge in the Meno, I intent to show that the two-world metaphysics implies the treatment of opinion and knowledge as cognitions which are essentially different and mutually irreducible. Also, since Socrates was mainly concerned with the notion of knowledge as knowing what (is) which requires an apprehension of essences or Forms, he did not pay particular attention to the knowing that. As a result, Socrates did not argue to establish the conditions of justification to be given propositionally in order for a belief becomes knowledge. |
id |
UNB-18_a63648f3de8364c70ce0ed78711156dd |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/8766 |
network_acronym_str |
UNB-18 |
network_name_str |
Revista Archai (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Plato on the Traditional Definition of KnowledgePlatão e a definição tradicional de conhecimentoepistemedoxaPlatãoEpistemologiaepistemedoxaPlatoEpistemologyIn Plato’s dialogues, Socrates often contrasts opinion (doxa) with knowledge (episteme), as a fallible form of cognition against an infallible one. He seems to suggest that by attaching to a true opinion a ‘calculation of cause’ or some sort of account, we can convert it into knowledge. Many scholars and epistemologists have taken this suggestion as evidence that the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief traces back to Plato. In this paper, I claim that it is inaccurate to suppose that Plato foresaw the tripartite analysis of knowledge of the Contemporary Epistemology. Focusing on the theory of recollection and the distinction between true opinion and knowledge in the Meno, I intent to show that the two-world metaphysics implies the treatment of opinion and knowledge as cognitions which are essentially different and mutually irreducible. Also, since Socrates was mainly concerned with the notion of knowledge as knowing what (is) which requires an apprehension of essences or Forms, he did not pay particular attention to the knowing that. As a result, Socrates did not argue to establish the conditions of justification to be given propositionally in order for a belief becomes knowledge.Nos diálogos de Platão, Sócrates frequentemente contrasta a opinião (doxa) ao conhecimento (episteme), como uma forma falível de cognição a uma infalível. Ele parece sugerir que, juntando a uma opinião verdadeira um ‘cálculo de causa’ ou algum tipo de explicação, podemos convertê-la em conhecimento. Muitos intérpretes e epistemólogos têm tomado essa sugestão como evidência de que a definição tradicional de conhecimento como crença verdadeira justificada remonta a Platão. Neste artigo, alego que não é exato supor que Platão antecipou a análise tripartite do conhecimento da Epistemologia Contemporânea. Focalizando a teoria da reminiscência e a distinção entre opinião verdadeira e conhecimento no Mênon, pretendo mostrar que a metafísica dos dois mundos implica o tratamento da opinião e do conhecimento como cognições essencialmente distintas e mutuamente irredutíveis. Ademais, uma vez que Sócrates estava preocupado principalmente com a noção de conhecimento como saber o que (é), o que requer uma apreensão de essências ou Formas, ele não prestou particular atenção ao saber que. Como consequência, Sócrates não argumentou para estabelecer as condições de justificação a ser dada proposicionalmente para que uma crença se torne conhecimento.Cátedra UNESCO Archai (Universidade de Brasília); Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal; Annablume Editora, São Paulo, Brasil2018-04-17info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArticlesArtigosapplication/pdfhttps://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/876610.14195/1984-249X_23_6Revista Archai; No. 23 (2018): Archai Journal nº23 (May, 2018); 167Archai Journal; n. 23 (2018): Revista Archai nº23 (maio, 2018); 1671984-249X2179-496010.14195/1984-249X_23reponame:Revista Archai (Online)instname:Universidade de Brasília (UnB)instacron:UNBporhttps://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/8766/7501Pereira da Silva, Jose Lourençoinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2019-08-19T15:34:27Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/8766Revistahttps://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archaiPUBhttps://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/oai||archaijournal@unb.br|| cornelli@unb.br1984-249X1984-249Xopendoar:2019-08-19T15:34:27Revista Archai (Online) - Universidade de Brasília (UnB)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge Platão e a definição tradicional de conhecimento |
title |
Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge |
spellingShingle |
Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge Pereira da Silva, Jose Lourenço episteme doxa Platão Epistemologia episteme doxa Plato Epistemology |
title_short |
Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge |
title_full |
Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge |
title_fullStr |
Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge |
title_full_unstemmed |
Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge |
title_sort |
Plato on the Traditional Definition of Knowledge |
author |
Pereira da Silva, Jose Lourenço |
author_facet |
Pereira da Silva, Jose Lourenço |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Pereira da Silva, Jose Lourenço |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
episteme doxa Platão Epistemologia episteme doxa Plato Epistemology |
topic |
episteme doxa Platão Epistemologia episteme doxa Plato Epistemology |
description |
In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates often contrasts opinion (doxa) with knowledge (episteme), as a fallible form of cognition against an infallible one. He seems to suggest that by attaching to a true opinion a ‘calculation of cause’ or some sort of account, we can convert it into knowledge. Many scholars and epistemologists have taken this suggestion as evidence that the traditional definition of knowledge as justified true belief traces back to Plato. In this paper, I claim that it is inaccurate to suppose that Plato foresaw the tripartite analysis of knowledge of the Contemporary Epistemology. Focusing on the theory of recollection and the distinction between true opinion and knowledge in the Meno, I intent to show that the two-world metaphysics implies the treatment of opinion and knowledge as cognitions which are essentially different and mutually irreducible. Also, since Socrates was mainly concerned with the notion of knowledge as knowing what (is) which requires an apprehension of essences or Forms, he did not pay particular attention to the knowing that. As a result, Socrates did not argue to establish the conditions of justification to be given propositionally in order for a belief becomes knowledge. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-04-17 |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Articles Artigos |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/8766 10.14195/1984-249X_23_6 |
url |
https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/8766 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.14195/1984-249X_23_6 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://periodicos.unb.br/index.php/archai/article/view/8766/7501 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cátedra UNESCO Archai (Universidade de Brasília); Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal; Annablume Editora, São Paulo, Brasil |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Cátedra UNESCO Archai (Universidade de Brasília); Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal; Annablume Editora, São Paulo, Brasil |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista Archai; No. 23 (2018): Archai Journal nº23 (May, 2018); 167 Archai Journal; n. 23 (2018): Revista Archai nº23 (maio, 2018); 167 1984-249X 2179-4960 10.14195/1984-249X_23 reponame:Revista Archai (Online) instname:Universidade de Brasília (UnB) instacron:UNB |
instname_str |
Universidade de Brasília (UnB) |
instacron_str |
UNB |
institution |
UNB |
reponame_str |
Revista Archai (Online) |
collection |
Revista Archai (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista Archai (Online) - Universidade de Brasília (UnB) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
||archaijournal@unb.br|| cornelli@unb.br |
_version_ |
1798319944932261888 |