Truth Essay

How can the different ways of knowing help us to distinguish between something that is true and something that is believed to be true?

Through Plato’s idea of knowledge we are able to get a clear understanding of what is true and what is not. Plato created a set way to identify truth. By looking at his ideas of what knowledge is, there is a greater understanding for how to separate something that is true from something that is not.

Plato’s argument is that knowledge has to be described and communicated, that way it had certainty to its truth. “Propositional” knowledge (aka Platonic knowledge or knowledge by description) is a way that we can determine what is true and what is not. Propositional knowledge is a formal statement of convincing knowledge, or “knowing that” something is true. According to Plato knowledge can be tested to see if it is in fact true or not. In order to be knowledge it must apply to three things, it must be justified, it must be true, and it must be believed. Knowledge can be justified though authority, empathy, ratification, and memory. Belief however is necessary but is not sufficient enough to stand on its own. Now for something to be true it must also fit into three categories. It must be public, independent, and eternal. The information presented has to be public, for example if the true statement was that a dog is friendly is true it must be friendly to everyone. If it was only friendly to its owner and not to other people of the public then it is not true. The statement must also be independent of belief. For example the owner of that dog may fully believe that his dog is friendly when in fact it is a evil beast, his belief does not make it true. Last but not least the dogs friendliness must be eternal. In that moment that dog must be friendly then and forever.

Based on Plato’s three clarifications must of how a piece of knowledge be true, I believe it fits in with all types on knowledge. In empiricism/experiential knowledge (see it, smell it, hear it, touch it, taste it) any sort of knowledge presented to be true through induction must also have to fit into the three categories. For example if someone were to say “the grass is green” because they can see that the grass is in fact green this knowledge could be verified as truth because it is public, everyone can see that the grass is green, it is separate from belief, and it is eternal because the grass will always be green in that moment. Rationalism and Deduction (instructed knowledge using a prior knowledge, ‘knowledge that came before’) are also an example that knowledge that can be used to distinguish between what is truth and what is not. For example a person can know that fire is hot and not to touch it through rationalization, it can be told to a person through authoritative means, they can tell from the heat it gives off, etc. All of the knowledge that they have acquired about fire can lead a person to know that fire is dangerous and not to touch it through ratification, without them ever having to try. This is public because fire is dangerous to all, it doesn’t only hurt some people. It is independent, because even if you believe it is not hot it is in fact hot. It is eternal because in that moment fire will always be hot.

The implications of my argument are that I believe that Plato’s form of acknowledging truth is the right form, no matter what type of knowledge is used. In my argument I do not address any other ways to justify truth through knowledge, and if people were to believe my claims then they would all think the same as Plato. There would not be any challenges in the way that we conclude what is true and what is not. This could impede on the development of knowledge as a whole. However, it would also lead to a recognized system to decide on truth and would create less ambiguity in the world.

A counter claim to my argument would be that Plato’s belief on finding truth from knowledge is wrong. There might be a different methodology this person may find more suitable to show how knowledge is truth. They could also argue with the three different categories that Plato lies out. It could be argued that truth does not have to be eternal since our realms of knowledge are changing daily, that things cannot ever stay eternal.

According to Plato’s idea of knowledge there it must be believed. However, just believing in something does not make it knowledge. For example you can not know that that grass is green with our believing in it. Also even though you may believe in dragons, it does not mean you have knowledge of them, because they are neither justified nor true. Also according to Plato truth must be independent of belief. This makes it fairly easy to separate truth from something that is believed to be true.