Plato and Knowledge

I wonder, "What does Plato have to say about knowledge, and to what degree is knowledge an absolute?"

Size and Scope of the Corpus

To address this question, I amassed twenty-six English-language items authored or attributed to Plato. All of these items were garnered from Project Gutenberg. (See the cache, the rudimentary bibliography, and the computed summary.) Because the word "knowledge" occurs as one of the more frequent computed keywords in the corpus, I can assume, at least to some degree, the concept of knowledge is discussed:

Word cloud illustrating the frequency of computed keywords in the Plato corpus

Traditional Close Reading Process

I can then search the collection for items where "knowledge" is a computed keyword. There are thirteen, and the traditional way to address my question would be to apply close reading to the following items:

But call me lazy. I want to address my question. I want to get answers not pointers.

Knowledge Is Using Grammar

One of the most rudimentary ways to extract definitions is to concordance for something like "knowledge is". Here are some of the more meaningful results of such a process when applied to the corpus:

qualities? socrates: why, you know that knowledge is the first qualification of any teacher?
wledge of what we do not know? besides, knowledge is an abstraction only, and will not infor
each. we seem to find that the ideal of knowledge is irreconcilable with experience. in huma
ignored, and the certainty of objective knowledge is transferred to the subject; while absol
lace, they are abiding. and this is why knowledge is more honourable and excellent than true
wledge is power? protagoras agrees that knowledge is certainly a governing power. this, howe
s the food of the soul? surely, i said, knowledge is the food of the soul; and we must take
?' 'i think we must admit that absolute knowledge is the most exact knowledge, which we must
edge, one of two things follows--either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at al
your favorite doctrine, socrates, that knowledge is simply recollection, if true, also nece
her incline to think that the method of knowledge is inseparable from actual knowledge, and
e measure of all things,' and that 'all knowledge is perception.' this was the subjective wh
ion; but i will venture to assert, that knowledge is true opinion: let this then be my reply
the doves, and say that the chase after knowledge is of two kinds? one kind is prior to poss
e fancied to be a perfect definition of knowledge is a dream only. but perhaps we had better
nce or of anything! and so, theaetetus, knowledge is neither sensation nor true opinion, nor
n the other hand, we are conscious that knowledge is independent of time, that truth is not
combine, and he is of opinion that such knowledge is granted to the gods only. to have seen

A similar way to extract such sentences is to find all sentences with the form subject-predicate-object, and then retain only the ones where the word "knowledge" is the subject and the predicate is a form of the word verb "to be". Below is a sample of the results of such a process:

Why, you know that knowledge is the first qualification of any teacher
Not power but knowledge is the characteristic of a king or royal person.
Besides, knowledge is an abstraction only, and will not inform us of any particular subject, such as medicine, building, and the like.
Still at the bottom of the arguments there remains a truth, that knowledge is something more than sensible perception;--this alone would not distinguish man from a tadpole.
But the thoughts of men deepened, and soon they began to be aware that knowledge was neither sense, nor yet opinion--with or without explanation; nor the expression of thought, nor the enumeration of parts, nor the addition of characteristic marks.
And what we fancied to be a perfect definition of knowledge is a dream only.
And so, Theaetetus, knowledge is neither sensation nor true opinion, nor yet definition and explanation accompanying and added to true opinion?
Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul; and we must take care, my friend, that the Sophist does not deceive us when he praises what he sells, like the dealers wholesale or retail who sell the food of the body; for they praise indiscriminately all their goods, without knowing what are really beneficial or hurtful: neither do their customers know, with the exception of any trainer or physician who may happen to buy of them.
Now the rest of the world are of opinion that knowledge is a principle not of strength, or of rule, or of command: their notion is that a man may have knowledge, and yet that the knowledge which is in him may be overmastered by anger, or pleasure, or pain, or love, or perhaps by fear,--just as if knowledge were a slave, and might be dragged about anyhow.
And what did you think, he said, of that part of the argument in which we said that knowledge was recollection, and hence inferred that the soul must have previously existed somewhere else before she was enclosed in the body?
'My answer is, that knowledge is perception.'
But if knowledge is perception, how can we distinguish between the true and the false in such cases?
Theaetetus offers a definition which he has heard: Knowledge is true opinion accompanied by definition or explanation.
And so, Theaetetus, knowledge is neither perception nor true opinion, nor yet definition accompanying true opinion.
But if, said Socrates, you are still incredulous, Simmias, I would ask you whether you may not agree with me when you look at the matter in another way;--I mean, if you are still incredulous as to whether knowledge is recollection.
And so, Theodorus, we have got rid of your friend without assenting to his doctrine, that every man is the measure of all things--a wise man only is a measure; neither can we allow that knowledge is perception, certainly not on the hypothesis of a perpetual flux, unless perchance our friend Theaetetus is able to convince us that it is.
I cannot say, Socrates, that all opinion is knowledge, because there may be a false opinion; but I will venture to assert, that knowledge is true opinion: let this then be my reply; and if this is hereafter disproved, I must try to find another.

Apparently, according to Plato, knowledge has something to do with perception and true opinion.

Knowledge Is Using Semantic Indexing

Yet another way to identify sentences alluding to knowledge is to apply semantic indexing against them and then query for the word "knowledge". I did just this, and the results are returned in the form of one long paragraph:

But even if knowledge can know itself, how does the knowledge of what we know imply the knowledge of what we do not know? But of what is this knowledge? And that knowledge which is nearest of all, I said, is the knowledge of what? But what is this knowledge then, and of what? LACHES: And the reason of this is that they have knowledge? Would not knowledge?--a knowledge of measuring, when the question is one of excess and defect, and a knowledge of number, when the question is of odd and even? 'Then you learn what you know.' What knowledge is there which has such a nature? And knowing is having knowledge at the time? And not knowing is not having knowledge at the time? But then what is this knowledge, and what are we to do with it? Certainly, of the knowledge which I have. Knowledge is prior to any particular knowledge, and exists not in the previous state of the individual, but of the race. And what is the nature of this knowledge or recollection? And we have not got the idea of knowledge? We cannot define knowledge until the nature of definition has been ascertained. And so we must ask again, What is knowledge? What then is knowledge? question--"What is knowledge?" 'My answer is, that knowledge is perception.' But if so, knowledge is not perception. What then is knowledge? All this time we have been repeating the words 'know,' 'understand,' yet we do not know what knowledge is. Is there some other form of knowledge which distinguishes them? What then is knowledge? But when the word 'knowledge' was found how was it to be explained or defined? It may be regarded as a higher degree of knowledge when we not only know but know that we know. Herein lies the difficulty which I can never solve to my satisfaction--What is knowledge? And so, when the question is asked, What is knowledge? That which is known is affected by knowledge, and therefore is in motion. Knowledge, like the other, is one; and yet the various parts of knowledge have each of them their own particular name, and hence there are many arts and kinds of knowledge. Not power but knowledge is the characteristic of a king or royal person.

The paragraph can be transformed into a set of smaller paragraphs by comparing the each sentence to its subsequent sentence, and if the two are significantly different, then a new paragraph is begun. Here is the result of such a process:

But even if knowledge can know itself, how does the knowledge of what we know imply the knowledge of what we do not know? But of what is this knowledge? And that knowledge which is nearest of all, I said, is the knowledge of what?

But what is this knowledge then, and of what? LACHES: And the reason of this is that they have knowledge? Would not knowledge?--a knowledge of measuring, when the question is one of excess and defect, and a knowledge of number, when the question is of odd and even?

'Then you learn what you know.' What knowledge is there which has such a nature? And knowing is having knowledge at the time? And not knowing is not having knowledge at the time? But then what is this knowledge, and what are we to do with it?

Certainly, of the knowledge which I have. Knowledge is prior to any particular knowledge, and exists not in the previous state of the individual, but of the race. And what is the nature of this knowledge or recollection? And we have not got the idea of knowledge? We cannot define knowledge until the nature of definition has been ascertained. And so we must ask again, What is knowledge? What then is knowledge? question--"What is knowledge?" 'My answer is, that knowledge is perception.' But if so, knowledge is not perception. What then is knowledge? All this time we have been repeating the words 'know,' 'understand,' yet we do not know what knowledge is. Is there some other form of knowledge which distinguishes them? What then is knowledge? But when the word 'knowledge' was found how was it to be explained or defined? It may be regarded as a higher degree of knowledge when we not only know but know that we know. Herein lies the difficulty which I can never solve to my satisfaction--What is knowledge? And so, when the question is asked, What is knowledge? That which is known is affected by knowledge, and therefore is in motion. Knowledge, like the other, is one; and yet the various parts of knowledge have each of them their own particular name, and hence there are many arts and kinds of knowledge. Not power but knowledge is the characteristic of a king or royal person.

Many people will now say, "Can you cite from whence these sentences came?" And my answer is, "Yes, see the following list of items and the number of identified sentences coming from each":

Theaetetus (14)
Euthydemus (6)
Charmides (3)
Protagoras (2)
Sophist (2)
Laches (1)
Meno (1)
Phaedo (1)
Parmenides (1)
Statesman (1)

Notice how this list echoes the list identified via the keyword search, above. Moreover, if I were to apply close reading to my question, then I'd spend my time against Theaetetus.

Knowledge Is Supplemented with Large-Language Models

The long paragraph of extracted sentences can then be used as input to a large-language model for summarization. Such is what I did:

In this context, the question "What is knowledge?" is posed multiple times, with various responses and discussions that revolve around the nature of knowledge. Here's a brief summary of the main points:

1. Knowledge is prior to any particular knowledge, and exists in the race rather than the individual. 2. The nature of knowledge or recollection is not fully understood, and so the question "What is knowledge?" remains difficult to define. 3. Knowledge is perception, but this definition raises further questions about what constitutes knowledge. 4. Knowledge is a higher degree of understanding when one not only knows but also recognizes that they know. 5. The concept of knowledge is complex and multifaceted, encompassing various arts and kinds of knowledge. 6. Power is not the defining characteristic of a king or royal person, but rather knowledge.

Overall, the conversation highlights the challenges of defining knowledge and the various ways in which it can be understood and approached.

Somewhat helpful.

The same long paragraph can be used as input into a large-language model and queried. This process is called "retrieval-augmented generation" (RAG). I "ragged" my paragraph and asked, "What is knowledge?". Here is the complete response:

As a college professor with a limited capacity for words, I must concisely address the question "what is knowledge?" Knowledge, in essence, refers to the understanding or awareness of something, whether it be a fact, concept, or experience. However, the nature of this understanding is not straightforward, as it implies an acknowledgment of what one does not know just as much as what one does know.

The closest knowledge we have is the knowledge of what? The answer lies in the realization that knowledge is prior to any particular knowledge and exists within the collective race rather than the individual. This collective knowledge is a recollection of experiences and perceptions that transcend individual understanding.

The question remains, "What is knowledge?" Is it perception? No, for knowledge encompasses more than just perceiving something. It is a higher degree of awareness, acknowledging both what we know and what we do not know. The difficulty lies in defining this concept, as it eludes our understanding despite repeated attempts.

In essence, knowledge is a complex and multifaceted construct that cannot be reduced to a single definition. It encompasses various forms of understanding, including power, which distinguishes a king or royal person from others. Ultimately, the nature of knowledge remains a mystery, and we are left with more questions than answers.

Again, somewhat helpful.

Conclusion

So, what is knowledge according to Plato? Quite frankly, I am unable to answer the question definitely, but I am going away with a better and more nuanced understanding of the topic. And I am now equipped with a vocabulary for discussion. Yet, a sophomoric answer to the question might be, "Knowledge, according to Plato, has something to do with perception, 'true opinion', and recollection, but then again, the question may be moot or unanswerable."

For extra credit, I might try to understand the definition of "true opinion". Concordance snippets begin to address the question:

true opinion is as good a guide to correct action as knowledge
true opinion is no matter of conjecture with me
true opinion is proved by the rhetoric of the law courts, which cannot give knowledge
true opinion is surely unerring, and the results which follow from it are all noble and good

For extra extra credit, I might apply this same process against the works of some other philosopher and then do compare and contrast. Hmmm...

Interesting fact: It took me longer to write up what I learned and format it for the Web than it did to do the actual work. I believe that says something about the process. After all, as a librarian, one of my goals is to "Save the time of the reader."

Epilogue

This missive and all of the supporting data ought to be available as a Distant Reader study carrel ("data set") at the following URL:

http://carrels.distantreader.org/curated-plato_and_knowledge-gutenberg/index.zip

For more information about study carrels, see the readme.txt file.

Eric Lease Morgan <eric_morgan@infomotions.com>
July 7, 2025