Book five of the republic separates knowledge from belief with the use of what Plato refers to as ‘sight-seers’. The republic states that to understand anything you must understand something about goodness. Sightseers go to the theatre, walk in the countryside and admire art; they recognize these things as being beautiful but are incapable of understanding the true nature of beauty. This is where Plato draws a line between knowledge and belief. For example, anyone can see a flower and believe it to be beautiful but this doesn’t necessarily mean that the flower is beauty. It is only an example of beauty itself, therefore a representation of the concept of beauty. Beauty takes on different forms; we must use our minds to understand the knowledge of beauty. Therefore, beautiful objects are different from beauty itself as in certain circumstances beautiful objects can appear to be ugly whereas beauty itself can never be deemed as ugly. This is where one must separate the material and intelligible realms, if in the material world we believe the flower to be beautiful but if we are enlightened and in the intelligible realm we understand the knowledge of beauty.
The theory of forms is the idea that there are three forms; the first form is the least true and consists of shadows, reflections and paintings. These representations are mere copies of material objects which Plato considers are copies themselves of things in the ‘ultimate reality’. This reality is the true form, created by God where all the objects are copied from. So we have the ability to recognise what a chair is and we have the ability to differentiate between a chair and table- but these objects are only copies of the eternal chair we picture in our mind. We cannot have knowledge of these copies because they have the ability to change. The divided line separates the intelligible and material world. This line shows conjecture, belief and confidence as belonging to the visible world whereas mathematics and reasoning belong to the intelligible realm. Forms belong in the higher intelligible world whilst the copies only fall into the visible world. The intelligible realm is where one will find enlightenment; this knowledge is what makes a philosopher.
Plato’s allegory of the cave clarifies this explanation of the material and intelligible realms. The allegory describes the setting inside a cave, it is described as follows; prisoners are tied up in the cave and subjected to only look straight forward at the cave wall. Behind them is a partition wall and a fire which acts as the source of illumination within the cave, people also walk behind the prisoners carrying objects. Both the people and the objects they carry appear as shadows and reflections on the cave wall that the prisoners are staring at. Plato here is suggesting that the prisoners represent humans in society and the state that we are in in the material world. They believe the shadows they see are reality because they know nothing else and so cannot comprehend that there is anything else to know. They are living a life of only belief, for example; they believe the shadow of a pot they see is actually a pot but we know it is only the shadow of the real object. Even there source of illumination is false, it is not the real sun and form of the good. They lack knowledge, we know this because if they were freed they would be able to see how much more there is to know, not believe. If a prisoner could escape and discover not only the rest of the cave but also the outside world they would achieve a state equivalent to enlightenment and entering the intelligible realm. This would be true knowledge, not mere belief or conjecture.
Socrates’ and Theaetetus debate whether or not belief can ever become knowledge. They consider the possibility that a justified true belief could become knowledge if accompanied with account or reason. However, the problem here is not merely considering if a belief can become knowledge, but also how do we define ‘account’. For this Socrates proposes three possible answers. The first answer he proposes is rejected as being too simple because it claims that anyone with a true belief will be able to provide verbal explanation, so ‘expressing ourselves in speech’ is not adequate enough evidence to claim that belief can become knowledge. The next idea is ‘enumeration of elementary parts’. This states that the knowledge of something we seek should be broken down into its simplest forms. However, simple parts are elements and elements cannot be explained or known. Once an object or concept is broken down into its elementary parts, by definition they cannot be broken down any further, therefore they cannot be known. Another flaw is that even if someone was capable of putting all the elementary parts together this doesn’t necessarily equate to true knowledge. So, there can be correct belief without true knowledge. Just because a being has the capability to know all the parts of an object or concept, it doesn’t mean they know how or why those elements fit together. Plato’s theory of forms links to the 3rd definition of account. The basic principle is that in order to understand what makes something different from everything else (ie; unique) you need to know it, not just simply believe it. However, one must have‘knowledge’ of the ‘different ness’ and Socrates was trying to define knowledge. One must also consider that it is impossible to have knowledge of some things. If discussing the material world how can we know ‘something’ when that ‘thing’ is ever changing? Can you ever step in the same river once? This is an example of how frequently the material world around us is ever changing, surely when we are in a river due to the constant current and flow of water, technically we are never in the same waters once. So it is unrealistic to claim that in order to have knowledge of something you must know something when it appears impossible to actually ever ‘know’ something because the material world is ever changing. Even when Socrates describes the sun as ‘the brightest of the heavenly bodies’ how can we be sure this will be unchangeably true for eternity? This adds further support to the conclusion that we cannot know about material objects that are constantly subject to change. Therefore, it is only possible for us to have true knowledge of things in the intelligible world, not the material one.
In conclusion I believe that Plato successfully differentiates between knowledge and belief through very sound and logical arguments. However, Plato is almost suggesting that true and pure knowledge is impossible to acquire because as mortals we only have the capacity to believe, not know. Through his allegory of the cave and comparing our society to the prisoner’s reality he is suggesting that the objects we see in the material world are only mere copies of the eternal objects in the intelligible realm and our reality is only what we believe to see. Despite the fact that Plato suggests true knowledge is impossible for us to obtain he is successful in offering different definitions for belief and knowledge.
