Infallibility of Knowledge in Plato's Republic

The question of how peoples beliefs are either justified or known can be understood and answered by first looking at the question from a different approach to determine whether the beliefs are known or justified. Therefore, to determine whether the perceptual beliefs are justified or known may be understood through Platos concept of form that explains that a veil of perception exists between what people can see and the external objects; therefore, there is not direct unvarnished access to the reality, but instead people have access to the mediate sensory appearances (Scaltsas, 2012). However, this condition of seeing the sensory appearances may depend on various factors; for example, the conditions of sense organs and the ability of the brain to directly get stimulated. Therefore, as this paper will show, Platos theory of infallibility demonstrates nothing is directly presented in the human mind, but instead, people perceive the things they see to be true through their perceptual appearances; thus, we cannot have knowledge of the ordinary, visible objects and properties.

Platos Republic creates the familiar concepts with the unfamiliarity. Plato tried to differentiate the state between knowledge and ignorance through the correlation of the intermediate concepts of what is and what is not. Plato argued that beliefs and knowledge are two distinct capacities (Cooper, 1986). However, the capacities differ under one circumstance; and that is if they are in correlation relationship with the different objects. He further argued that knowledge is infallible while belief is fallible (Lee, 2010). Therefore, as the author states since the concept of knowledge are correlated with what is; therefore, belief must be correlated with something else other than what is.

As Santas (1973) explains, the concept of knowledge as brought forth in Platos Republic can be understood and explained in terms of reasons and senses. However, according to Gulley (2013), it is also important to note that there exists a difference between the two concepts used to explain and understand the concept of knowledge. According to Santas (1973), the sense experience cannot be used to justify or guarantee what one perceives to know to be true. On the other hand, the power of reason can be demonstrated on the basis of self-evidence and principles which form the bedrock of attaining knowledge. The so-called principles according to Platos Republic do not come from the experiences but instead, they are attained from the implicit in the absoluteness of an individuals reason. Basically, Platos Republic based his arguments on the basis that for an individual to claim that he/she knows something then there must be something for him/her to know. However, for something to be known then it must be real. Plato tried to differentiate belief and knowledge claiming that its objective is to know the truth about reality. Therefore, it must be concerned with what is real. On the other hand, ignorance is concerned with what is not real or unreality where beliefs are in between the two worlds of reality and unreality (Cooper, 1986, p. 231).

The concept of knowledge in Platos Republic is explained in terms of two aspects which Plato himself believed to be the fundamental worlds that co-exist in reality (Woodruff, 1990, p. 61). The first world consists of essential or permanent things; Plato also described it as the eternal form. The other world consists of appearances. As an attempt to separate the two worlds, Plato argued that the appearance world is composed of the ordinary visible objects (Santas, 1973, p. 32). However, these ordinary visible objects are not real because they are nothing but just reflections of real things. Therefore, the ability of people to see the real world is mediated by the misleading perceptual appearances. Plato argued that people tend to believe that the perceptual appearances that they see are not misleading. However, this is where trouble emerges because, from Platos argument, people can no longer rely on their beliefs or the perceptions. The indirectness principle of Platos concept of knowledge can help explain this further; where nothing is directly present in the human mind except perceptual appearances. Plato believed that since there is nothing in the human mind except the perceptual appearances, people are not justified in their perceptual beliefs (Santas, 1973). In his reason claim, Plato expressed that people do not have good reasons for thinking perceptual appearances are veridical; thus, they are not justified by their perceptual beliefs (Cornford, 2003).

The concept of truth the way it has been presented in Platos Republic is quite hard to understand without engaging other scholars who have also contributed to the concept of knowledge. As Socrates also explained that one who knows must know it is important to understand other concepts that contribute to knowledge attainment. Therefore, it is important to understand the concept of truth. Based on Platos argument, it is difficult to understand what is true and what is not. However, with the help of other scholars discussions, we are able to understand this concept and eventually understand Platos argument of why people cannot have knowledge of ordinary, visible objects and properties. According to Gulley (2013), the concept of truth can be understood in terms of the appearance of the world and the prepositional element that is said or thought. Therefore, truth is the ability to know is the case and describe the world through what it really is. Knowledge as explained in Platos Republic involves what is known which must also exist. As Socrates also expanded later on the discussion, what is completely true must be knowable; thus, the essence of knowledge (Vlastos, 1985).

Plato further argued that the difference between knowledge and perceptual appearance or opinion is based on the difference in their object (Santas, 1973, p. 31). However, people are unable to differentiate the concept of knowledge and perceptions because opinions change. Everyone cannot see things in the same way; this difference is what brings the ambivalent existence of objects. However, what is true according to Platos argument of knowledge must qualify the four criteria; for example, invariable, fixed, permanent, and unchanging. Experiences change and this is why people can see things from different points of view. Plato argued that everything and everyone are the same when they are born because they do not possess any knowledge. However, as they grow they come in contact with different experiences that shape their beliefs and the way they perceive things. The more a person is exposed to more or numerous situations and events, the more he/she is exposed to wider teaching experiences that help him/her acquire knowledge. Plato acknowledged that everything that happens in a persons life has significant impact on their lives because it shapes how their knowledge grows and how much knowledge they can acquire (Woodruff, 1990, p. 61). As demonstrated in Platos Republic this can be seen through the development and growth of human personality because their behaviors change as they grow. The behaviors change from the knowledge that they acquire through their lifetime which is also shaped by the kinds and amount of experiences that they have passed through.

Platos Republic demonstrates that knowledge is a representation of reality infallibility while ignorance represents falsely (Cooper, 1986, p. 234). The argument further states that opinions or perceptual appearance represent the reality fallibility. Although, Plato has not argued much about ignorance; but it can be understood through the concept of reality infallibility. Plato in his argument compared the objects of knowledge and ignorance where he said that no matter how people look at a certain thing; the outcome is either true or false. According to Scaltsas (2012, p. 138), the truth is represented by knowable and fallacy is represented by unknowable. Therefore, it is either something that is real is completely knowable or unreal or it is completely unknowable. As a result, he developed the reality objects which were later called Platonic forms. The Platonic forms were designated the F to distinguish the reality and unreality. In his attempt to develop and establish the numerical oneness of each form, Plato described and distinguished the form. Plato argued that it is each form that appears differently and in many ways through the things it describes either in actions, objects or other forms that it characterizes. Scholars agree that Platos concepts of knowledge are difficult to be understood in the contemporary society as it involves many explanatory roles of in terms of their similarities (Gulley, 2013; Lee, 2010, p. 857). People find it difficult to interpret Platos concept of is in its notion of being completely or not being at all. The notion of being completely is designated with F while the notion of not being completely is designated non-F (Santas, 1973). However, based on Platos three interpretational approaches, we are able to understand the concept of is which fits the notion of being complete.

First, Platos Republic argument shows that the concept of is can be understood through the existential interpretation where objects of knowledge are seen as objects which fully or completely exist. In this notion, Plato argued that objects that are fully or completely exist are less full sense and the objects of ignorance do not exist in any way at all. Scholars have commented on Platos notion of existential interpretation. According to Santas (1973), this interpretational approach is based on the traditional attribution of Platos concept of degrees of reality. Therefore, it is not easy to understand some of these concepts and how they are related to knowledge and its acquisition as Plato applied. According to Cornford (2003), it is problematic to understand the concept of lesser degree of existence. However, this kind of argument cannot be accounted against Plato and his arguments. On the other hand, some scholars have argued that the concept of existential interpretation does not fit the explanation about perceptual appearance or objects of opinion (Woodruff, 1990). However, based on Platos argument, objects of opinion can be understood through their characterized forms and opposites.

Secondly, Plato came up with the predicative interpretation to help people understand the concept of reality represented by is. Plato believed that the objects of knowledge are only those that are F in every sense of F. Santas (1973) argues that this interpretational approach may help people understand the objects of knowledge and opinion. On the other hand, opponents of this argument claim that this interpretational approach has more shortcomings because it is unable to differentiate the concept of being completely in a certain situation and their opposites (Scaltsasa, 2012). For example, when something is described as big it is said to be knowable as the same way something small can be described as small because it is equally knowable. The concept of being honest is equally knowable as the concept of being dishonest. Therefore, this problem emerging from understanding the objects of knowledge and opinion has proven to be problematic in Platos predicative interpretational approach.

Lastly, Plato designed the veridical interpretation where he argued that the concept of is can be understood as truth. The objects of knowledge through the concept of veridical interpretation is said to be completely true. In this perspective, the objects of opinion can be said to be true or not true. On the other hand, the object of ignorance is co...