THEAETETUS [28]
out of your memory all that has
preceded, see if you have arrived at any clearer view, and once more
say what is knowledge.
Theaet. 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.
Soc. That is the way in which you ought to answer, Theaetetus, and
not in your former hesitating strain, for if we are bold we shall gain
one of two advantages; either we shall find what we seek, or we
shall be less likely to think that we know what we do not know-in
either case we shall be richly rewarded. And now, what are you
saying?-Are there two sorts of opinion, one true and the other
false; and do you define knowledge to be the true?
Theaet. Yes, according to my present view.
Soc. Is it still worth our while to resume the discussion touching
opinion?
Theaet. To what are you alluding?
Soc. There is a point which often troubles me, and is a great
perplexity to me, both in regard to myself and others. I cannot make
out the nature or origin of the mental experience to which I refer.
Theaet. Pray what is it?
Soc. How there can be-false opinion-that difficulty still troubles
the eye of my mind; and I am uncertain whether I shall leave the
question, or over again in a new way.
Theaet. Begin again, Socrates,-at least if you think that there is
the slightest necessity for doing so. Were not you and Theodorus
just now remarking very truly, that in discussions of this kind we may
take our own time?
Soc. You are quite right, and perhaps there will be no harm in
retracing our steps and beginning again. Better a little which is well
done, than a great deal imperfectly.
Theaet. Certainly.
Soc. Well, and what is the difficulty? Do we not speak of false
opinion, and say that one man holds a false and another a true
opinion, as though there were some natural distinction between them?
Theaet. We certainly say so.
Soc. All things and everything are either known or not known. I
leave out of view the intermediate conceptions of learning and
forgetting, because they have nothing to do with our present question.
Theaet. There can be no doubt, Socrates, if you exclude these,
that there is no other alternative but knowing or not knowing a thing.
Soc. That point being now determined, must we not say that he who
has an opinion, must have an opinion about something which he knows or
does not know?
Theaet. He must.
Soc. He who knows, cannot but know; and he who does not know, cannot
know?
Theaet. Of course.
Soc. What shall we say then? When a man has a false opinion does
he think that which he knows to be some other thing which he knows,
and knowing both, is he at the same time ignorant of both?
Theaet. That, Socrates, is impossible.
Soc. But perhaps he thinks of something which he does not know as
some other thing which he does not know; for example, he knows neither
Theaetetus nor Socrates, and yet he fancies that Theaetetus is
Socrates, or Socrates Theaetetus?
Theaet. How can he?
Soc. But surely he cannot suppose what he knows to be what he does
not know, or what he does not know to be what he knows?
Theaet. That would be monstrous.
Soc. Where, then, is false opinion? For if all things are either
known or unknown, there can be no opinion which is not comprehended
under this alternative, and so false opinion is excluded.
Theaes. Most true.
Soc. Suppose that we remove the question out of the sphere of
knowing or not knowing, into that of being and not-being.
Theaet. What do you mean?
Soc. May we not suspect the simple truth to be that he who thinks
about anything, that which. is not, will necessarily think what is
false, whatever in other respects may be the state of his mind?
Theaet. That, again, is not unlikely, Socrates.
Soc. Then suppose some one to say to us, Theaetetus:-Is
preceded, see if you have arrived at any clearer view, and once more
say what is knowledge.
Theaet. 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.
Soc. That is the way in which you ought to answer, Theaetetus, and
not in your former hesitating strain, for if we are bold we shall gain
one of two advantages; either we shall find what we seek, or we
shall be less likely to think that we know what we do not know-in
either case we shall be richly rewarded. And now, what are you
saying?-Are there two sorts of opinion, one true and the other
false; and do you define knowledge to be the true?
Theaet. Yes, according to my present view.
Soc. Is it still worth our while to resume the discussion touching
opinion?
Theaet. To what are you alluding?
Soc. There is a point which often troubles me, and is a great
perplexity to me, both in regard to myself and others. I cannot make
out the nature or origin of the mental experience to which I refer.
Theaet. Pray what is it?
Soc. How there can be-false opinion-that difficulty still troubles
the eye of my mind; and I am uncertain whether I shall leave the
question, or over again in a new way.
Theaet. Begin again, Socrates,-at least if you think that there is
the slightest necessity for doing so. Were not you and Theodorus
just now remarking very truly, that in discussions of this kind we may
take our own time?
Soc. You are quite right, and perhaps there will be no harm in
retracing our steps and beginning again. Better a little which is well
done, than a great deal imperfectly.
Theaet. Certainly.
Soc. Well, and what is the difficulty? Do we not speak of false
opinion, and say that one man holds a false and another a true
opinion, as though there were some natural distinction between them?
Theaet. We certainly say so.
Soc. All things and everything are either known or not known. I
leave out of view the intermediate conceptions of learning and
forgetting, because they have nothing to do with our present question.
Theaet. There can be no doubt, Socrates, if you exclude these,
that there is no other alternative but knowing or not knowing a thing.
Soc. That point being now determined, must we not say that he who
has an opinion, must have an opinion about something which he knows or
does not know?
Theaet. He must.
Soc. He who knows, cannot but know; and he who does not know, cannot
know?
Theaet. Of course.
Soc. What shall we say then? When a man has a false opinion does
he think that which he knows to be some other thing which he knows,
and knowing both, is he at the same time ignorant of both?
Theaet. That, Socrates, is impossible.
Soc. But perhaps he thinks of something which he does not know as
some other thing which he does not know; for example, he knows neither
Theaetetus nor Socrates, and yet he fancies that Theaetetus is
Socrates, or Socrates Theaetetus?
Theaet. How can he?
Soc. But surely he cannot suppose what he knows to be what he does
not know, or what he does not know to be what he knows?
Theaet. That would be monstrous.
Soc. Where, then, is false opinion? For if all things are either
known or unknown, there can be no opinion which is not comprehended
under this alternative, and so false opinion is excluded.
Theaes. Most true.
Soc. Suppose that we remove the question out of the sphere of
knowing or not knowing, into that of being and not-being.
Theaet. What do you mean?
Soc. May we not suspect the simple truth to be that he who thinks
about anything, that which. is not, will necessarily think what is
false, whatever in other respects may be the state of his mind?
Theaet. That, again, is not unlikely, Socrates.
Soc. Then suppose some one to say to us, Theaetetus:-Is