Plato is concerned in the difference between true knowledge and mere belief because one deals with faith and the other with facts. True knowledge is the absolute clearest truth one can say. In relationship to rhetoric, true knowledge is using true facts to back your argument or support your stance. With mere belief, you have no concrete evidence to support your claim or point. In the justice system, facts can save or damn a person on whether or not they committed a crime. If you just merely believed that he did it, you may condemn an innocent man, but, if you find the true knowledge or facts, then you may lock away a killer or save an innocent man.
roachma18's blog
Just another Virginia Military Institute ePortfolio site
I agree with what you are saying here, I also think you could expand upon your answer. I think Plato was concerned with the fact that the Sophists couldn’t understand true knowledge because they were not trained enough. The fact that they were not trained enough meant they could never know true justice and could never serve true justice in the courtroom.