Mere belief vs. True knowledge

Plato didn’t like the Sophists for numerous reasons. The main and most common one being that they were in search of persuasion of an audience by manipulating the public’s opinion. The sophists insisted to teach citizens about Justice without knowledge of Justice. Mere belief, “about Justice in a jury in a speech of an hour or two… That rhetoric that teaches Justice is highly unlikely” (Herrick 54). However, the sophists continued with wishing that their form of rhetoric was seen as a Techne, a true art.
Plato believed that the Sophists way of doing things were considered dangerous to create beliefs without having true knowledge. The disciple of Justice takes a long time to understand, and teaching it requires true knowledge of the subject. This is why Plato is so concerned between mere belief and true knowledge.

One thought on “Mere belief vs. True knowledge

  1. mcdonaldcr

    Kerisha,
    Underlying Plato’s argument against the Sophists is the fact that those who were educated in the subjects of knowledge (e.g., law, medicine, justice) were largely the philosophers. Without access to “true” knowledge, so the argument goes, how could Sophists be expected to teach more than a skill with words, right?

    Regards,
    COL McDonald

    Reply

Leave a Reply to mcdonaldcr Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *