THEAETETUS mean "judgements made about immediate
sensory awareness. “
• the young Theaetetus is introduced to Socrates
by his mathematics tutor, Theodorus. Socrates
questions Theaetetus about the nature of
expertise, and this leads him to pose the key
question of the dialogue: “What is
knowledge?”
• Socrates offers to explain Theaetetus’
bewilderment about the question “What is
knowledge?” by comparing himself with a
midwife: Theaetetus, he suggests, is in
discomfort because he is in intellectual labor
(148e–151d).
• 1st definition of knowledge - (“KNOWLEDGE IS
PERCEPTION”)
• "Knowledge is nothing other than perception"
(aisthêsis). This proposal is immediately
equated by Socrates with Protagoras's thesis
that "man is the measure of all things” which in
turn entails the thesis that things are to any
human just as they appear to that human (PS
for phenomenal subjectivism).
• Take, for instance, the thesis that knowledge is
awareness (which is often the right way to
translate aisthêsis).
• Or take the thesis that to know is to perceive
things as God, or the Ideal Observer, perceives
them, and that we fail to know (or to perceive)
just insofar as our opinions are other than
God's or the Ideal Observer's.
• “2nd definition of knowledge” - KNOWLEDGE IS
TRUE JUDGEMENT
• "perception" seems to mean "immediate
sensory awareness"; at other times it seems to
structured concatenations of sensory
impressions.
• The proposal that "Knowledge is immediate
sensory awareness" is rejected as incoherent:
"Knowledge is not to be found in our bodily
experiences, but in our reasoning’s about those
experiences" (186d2).
• The proposal that "Knowledge is judgement
about immediate sensory awareness" raises
the question how judgements, or beliefs, can
emerge from immediate sensory awareness.
• “3rd definition of knowledge” - “KNOWLEDGE
IS TRUE JUDGEMENT WITH AN ACCOUNT
• “CONCLUSION” The Theaetetus is an extended
attack on certain assumptions and intuitions
about knowledge that the intelligent man-in-
the-street—Theaetetus, for instance—might
find initially attractive, and which some
philosophers known to Plato—Protagoras and
Heraclitus, for instance—had worked up into
complex and sophisticated philosophical
theories.
• Basic to all these assumptions and intuitions,
which here have been grouped together under
the name "empiricism," is the idea that
knowledge is constructed out of perception
and perception alone.
• The first part of the Theaetetus attacks the idea
that knowledge could be simply identified with
perception; Perceptions alone have no
semantic structure.
• The second part attacks the suggestion that
knowledge can be defined as true belief, where
beliefs are supposed to be semantically
• Finally, in the third part of the Theaetetus, an
attempt is made to meet this challenge, and
present some explanation of how semantic
structures can arise out of mere perceptions or
impressions.
• The proposed explanation is the Dream Theory,
a theory interestingly comparable to Russellian
Logical Atomism, which takes both
propositions and objects to be complexes
"logically constructed" out of simple sensory
impressions. On this conception, knowledge
will come about when someone is capable not
only of using such logical constructions in
thought, but of understanding how they arise
from perception.
The one and the many (Parmenides)
• Reality is one. Strict monism
• The fact is that “monism” does not denote a
unique metaphysical position but a family of
positions. Among its species are strict monism
or the position that just one thing exists.
• according to which, respectively, there is a
single substance or a single kind of substance.
• Parmenides held that the multiplicity of
existing things, their changing forms and
motion, are but an appearance of a single
eternal reality (“Being”), thus giving rise to the
Parmenidean principle that “all is one.” From
this concept of Being, he went on to say that all
claims of change or of non-Being are illogical.
• According to Parmenides, the only thing that
is, is the One. The only true statement one
 can make is, ‘It is.’ From that statement,
various propositions follow:
• The One was not, or will it be but exists
altogether now, in the present. Hence, time
does not exist. The One is not material, and it is
not mental either. 
• Argument 1. (130e–131e) If particular things
come to partake of the Form of Beauty or
Likeness or Largeness they thereby become
beautiful or like or large. Parmenides presses
Socrates on how precisely many particulars can
participate in a single Form.
• On one hand, if the Form as a whole is present
in each of its many instances, then it would as
a whole be in numerically different places, and
thus separate from itself. Socrates suggests
that the Form might be like a day, and thus
present in many things at once. Parmenides
counters that this would be little different from
a single sail covering a number of people,
wherein different parts touch different
individuals; consequently, the Form is many.
• Argument 2. (132a–b) Socrates' reason for
believing in the existence of a single Form in
each case is that when he views a number of
(say) large things, there appears to be a single
character which they all share, viz. the
character of Largeness.
• Argument 3. (132b–c) To the suggestion that
each Form is a thought existing in a soul, thus
maintaining the unity of the Form, Parmenides
replies that a thought must be a thought of
something that is a Form. Thus we still have to
explain the participation relation. Further, if
things share in Forms which are no more than
thoughts, then either things consist of
thoughts and think, or else they are thoughts,
yet do not think.
The method is by deduction of consequences
related to both the posited existence and also non-
existence of a thing.
(1) If there is a One, it does not exist.
(2) If there is a one, it is many.
(3) If there is a one, the others are one(s).
(4) If there is a One, the Others have nothing to
do with it.
(5) If there is not a one, there is an idea of the
One.
(6) If there is not a One, the one is not in any
way whatsoever.
(7) If there is not a one, there are others.
(8) If there is not a One, there are no others.
There is nothing. 
• The one has no location; for being located
implies it having parts that touch different
places.
• The one has no motion; for motion implies
change and change makes the one a different
other than itself, thus, destroying its unity.
• The one cannot come into being in anything;
for coming into being in anything involves
successive entrance of its parts which the one
doesn’t possess; therefore, it cannot come into
being in anything.
• The one is never at rest; for rest implies
location and the one cannot be in location as
has already been seen.
• The one can neither be same with itself or
unlike itself or other; for sameness or likeness
both are of distinct nature from oneness; to be
same with itself would mean to be one and
also not one at the same time, which is
impossible.
• The one is not equal or unequal or older or
younger to itself or other; for all such
measurements involve partaking of the other
form of sameness (with the measures) which
the one cannot without becoming two.
• The one is not in time; for to be in time means
to become older than itself which is impossible
if it were one: to be one and at the same time
older to itself means also to be younger than
itself which is a contradiction. 
• Therefore, one, if it has being, turns out to be
many. Phenomenally speaking, the Idea of the
One also involves the Idea of the Whole and
the Idea of Being. Thus, One is more than one,
evidently involving a contradiction.
• The one is one and many, whole and parts,
having limits and yet unlimited in number; for,
since one and being are different, they
together are two and individually. To
Parmenides’ question, “But can all this be true
about the one,” Aristoteles answers, “I think
not.”
The Sophist
 The Sophist is a Platonic dialogue from the
philosopher's late period, most likely written in
360 BC. Its main theme is to identify what
a sophist is and how a sophist differs from
a philosopher and statesman. Like its sequel,
the Statesman, the dialogue is unusual in
that Socrates is present but plays only a minor
 role. Instead, the Eleatic Stranger takes the
lead in the discussion. Because Socrates is
silent, it is difficult to attribute the views put
forward by the Eleatic Stranger to Plato,
beyond the difficulty inherent in taking any
character to be an author's "mouthpiece".
 The main objective of the dialogue is to
identify what a sophist is and how a sophist
differs from a philosopher and statesman.
Because each seems distinguished by a
particular form of knowledge, the dialogue
continues some of the lines of inquiry pursued
in the epistemological dialogue, Theaetetus,
which is said to have taken place the day
before.
TIMAEUS
 The Timaeus is Plato’s attempt to describe how
the world came into being. Plato states that it
is only a “likely story” (29d); nonetheless, it is
an excellent summary of Platonic metaphysics.
 The main purpose of this writing is to explain
the creation of the universe in Plato’s eyes
 Timaeus is one of Plato’s dialogues, but it is
mostly in the form of monologue.
 TIMAEUS 29c Plato is describing the sensible
world which he knows cannot be done
perfectly, so he writes: If in our discussion of
many matters, we are not able to give perfectly
exact and self-consistent accounts, do not be
surprised; rather we should be content if we
provide accounts that are second to none in
probability.
 Timaeus 27d-28a: We must, then, in my
judgment, first make this distinction: What is
that which is always real and had no
becoming, and what is that which is always
becoming and is never real? That which is
apprehensible by thought with a rational
account is the thing that is always
unchangeably real; whereas that which is the
object of belief together with unreasoning
sensation is the thing that becomes and passes
away, but never has real being.
 Reality exists on two levels. The everyday
world of the senses which is transient
(constantly changing), and an underlying set of
concepts (ideas, rules, laws) that are eternal.
 Timaeus 28a: Everything which becomes must
of necessity become owing to some cause; for
without a cause it is impossible for anything to
attain becoming. In the world of the senses, all
that changes does so as a result of a cause.
 Timaeus 29a: Now if so be that this cosmos is
beautiful, and its Craftsman good, it is plain
that he fixed his gaze on the eternal; but if
otherwise, his gaze was on that which comes
into existence. But it is clear to everyone that
his was on the eternal; for the cosmos is the
fairest of all that has come into existence, and
he the best of all causes. The sensible world is
the result of the ordering of a benevolent
Craftsman.
Summary points:
 Timaeus gives rational account of the universe;
entire visible world was created by the
Demiurge (or creator or artist or craftsman, not
quite godlike)
 Demiurge injects reason and order onto pre-
existing chaos and materials
 four elements: earth, air, fire, water. elements
are solids composed of triangles
 Earth at center of universe; surrounded by
circles for the planets
 the rational soul infuses the entire universe
 man has an immortal soul because he the
ability to be rational. time and change were
created by the Demiurge at the same moment
when the world was formed
the world
 created from pre-existing materials; had a
beginning; is not perfect
 a living creature endowed with soul and
intelligence
 only one (there can be only one if the created
copy is to be in accord with the original)
 made of earth and water; bound together by
fire and air
 made of ALL the earth, water, fire, and air,
leaving no remnants out of which another
could be made
 spherical - as the sphere is the most perfect of
all figures
 self-sufficient (more perfect than not self-
sufficient)
 revolves in a circle (up/down, right/left,
forward/backward motions taken away from
universe) since this movement is most
appropriate to mind and intelligence
 Demiurge put the soul at the center so that it
could then diffuse throughout the entire body
of the universe; soul created before the
universe
 Demiurge wanted universe to be eternal (like
the ideal Form of the universe), but since this is
impossible, he gave the universe an "image of
eternity" -- motion and time; motion and time
created at same instant as the universe
 sun, moon, five planets created to measure
time; all are living bodies
 sun given fire so that it would give light to the
whole heavens
The Four elements:
 fire: a geometrical pyramid (four equilateral
triangles on a square base) (sharp)
 earth: a cube (six squares or 12 triangles) (least
mobile shape)
 air: octahedron (8 faces; 16 triangles)
 water: icosahedron (20 faces; 40 triangles)
Laws is a practical revision of the Political aspects
of the REPUBLIC
▪ Socrates' purpose in the Republic is to
determine the nature of justice, or "right
behavior."
▪ Socrates examines the nature of justice in both
the individual and in the city.
▪ Socrates associates justice with structures in
the human soul and social structures in the
city.
▪ Socrates states that if each citizen specifically
practices his occupation, and allows others to
practice theirs without interference, the city
will be a just city.
▪ Just as the rational part of the soul governs the
others in a just person, the rational part of the
city, that is the philosopher-king and the
guardians, should govern the producers and
the warriors.
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics on Happiness
 One of Aristotle’s most influential works is the
Nicomachean Ethics, where he presents a
theory of happiness that is still relevant today,
over 2,300 years later.
 The key question Aristotle seeks to answer in
these lectures is “What is the ultimate purpose
of human existence?” What is that end or goal
for which we should direct all of our activities?
 Everywhere we see people seeking pleasure,
wealth, and a good reputation. But while each
of these has some value, none of them can
occupy the place of the chief good for which
humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end,
an act must be self-sufficient and final, “that
which is always desirable in itself and never for
the sake of something else” (Nicomachean
Ethics, 1097a30-34), and it must be attainable
by man.
 Aristotle claims that nearly everyone would
agree that happiness is the end which meets all
these requirements. It is easy enough to see
that we desire money, pleasure, and honor
only because we believe that these goods will
make us happy. It seems that all other goods
are a means towards obtaining happiness,
while happiness is always an end in itself.
 Formal definition of happiness or flourishing
(eudaimonia) 
Happiness (or flourishing or living well) is a
complete and sufficient good.
This implies:
(a) that it is desired for itself,
(b) that it is not desired for the sake of anything
else,
(c) that it satisfies all desire and has no evil mixed
in with it, and
(d) that it is stable.  happiness: “…the function of man is to live a
 We have defined happiness formally as the
complete and sufficient good for a human
being. But there are many different views of
what sorts of life satisfy this formal definition.
 Aristotle specifically mentions the life of
gratification (pleasure, comfort, etc), the life
of money-making, the life of political action,
and the philosophical life, (the life of
contemplation or study). He has no patience
with the life of money-making or the life of
gratification, though he agrees with
proponents of the latter that a happy life is
pleasant.
 There are several ways in which Aristotle
approaches the question of what happiness
consists in.
 First, he notes that flourishing for plants and
animals consists in their functioning well
according to their natures.
Aristotle Explains the Hierarchical View of Nature:
If we look at nature, we notice that there are four
different kinds of things that exist in the world,
each one defined by a different purpose: 1.
Mineral, 2. Vegetative, 3. Animal, Human
 So one question we should ask is this: What is
the proper or peculiar function of a human
being?
 Aristotle thinks it obvious that our proper
function consists in reasoning and in acting in
accord with reason. This is the heart of the
doctrine of virtue, both moral and intellectual.
So on this line of reasoning we are led to the
conclusion that the possession and exercise of
moral and intellectual virtue is the essential
element in our living well.
 Thus Aristotle gives us his definition of
certain kind of life, and this activity implies a
rational principle, and the function of a good
man is the good and noble performance of
these, and if any action is well performed it is
performed in accord with the appropriate
excellence: if this is the case, then happiness
turns out to be an activity of the soul in
 accordance with virtue.” - (Nicomachean
Ethics, 1098a13)
 A second approach is to survey the goods
which we find ourself desiring, since happiness
presumably consists in the attainment of some
good or set of goods such that to have them in
the right way is to be living well.
 One division of goods is into:
(i) external goods (wealth, fame, honor, power,
friends),
(ii) goods of the body (life, health, good looks,
physical strength, athletic ability, dexterity
(manual skill), etc.), and
(iii) goods of the soul (virtue, life-projects,
knowledge and education, artistic creativity
and appreciation, recreation, friendship, etc.).
Aristotle's view is that:
(a) certain goods (e.g., life and health) are
necessary preconditions for happiness and that
(b) others (wealth, friends, fame, honor) are
embellishments that promote or fill out a good
life for a virtuous person, but that
(c) it is the possession and exercise of virtue
which is the core constitutive element of
happiness.
 The virtuous person alone can attain happiness
and the virtuous person can never be
miserable in the deepest sense, even in the
face of misfortune which keeps him from being
happy or blessed. So happiness combines an
element over which we have greater control
(virtue) with elements over which we have
lesser control (health, wealth, friends, etc.).
The Pursuit of Happiness as the Exercise of Virtue
 We can see another important feature of
Aristotle’s theory: the link between the
concepts of happiness and virtue.
Aristotle tells us that the most important factor in
the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good
moral character — what he calls “complete
virtue.” But being virtuous is not a passive state:
one must act in accordance with virtue. Nor is it
enough to have a few virtues; rather one must
strive to possess all of them.
Aristotle writes:
 “He is happy who lives in accordance with
complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped
with external goods, not for some chance
period but throughout a complete life.”
(Nicomachean Ethics, 1101a10)
 Aristotle starts with the claim that happiness is
dependent on virtue. He describes virtue as a
disposition, rather than an activity. The
individual needs to be naturally a ‘virtuous’
person, rather than just acting accordingly. This
exemplary man finds doing virtuous acts
pleasurable, which is presumably why he does
them.
But then, what is ‘virtuous’?
 Virtues are habits of the soul by which one acts
well, i.e., for the sake of what is fine and noble.
As Aristotle puts it, virtuous actions express
correct (right) reason. They are acquired
through practice and habituation.
 One becomes virtuous by acting virtuously, i.e.,
by acting as the virtuous person acts, doing
what one should when one should and in the
way one should. And the virtuous person
comes to take pleasure in acting virtuously.
(Hence, one sign that we have not acquired a
certain virtue is that when we perform actions
of the sort associated with that virtue, we do
not take pleasure in those actions but instead
find them burdensome.)
 By the same token, one becomes vicious by
allowing certain defective ways of acting to
become habitual. Virtue is difficult to attain,
since if we simply follow our inclinations, we
become vicious. Hence, even though we have a
natural desire for happiness, our inborn
inclinations often lead us away from our true
happiness.
 Having a virtue is different from having a skill
(e.g., carpentry or flute-playing) because what
counts is not just the product (i.e., the external
action) but the fixed intention with which the
action is done (viz., to do what is fine) and the
fixed and stable state from which the action
originates (viz., the habit of acting for the sake
of what is fine).
 For Aristotle, friendship is one of the most
important virtues in achieving the goal of
eudaimonia (happiness). While there are
different kinds of friendship, the highest is one
that is based on virtue (arête). This type of
friendship is based on a person wishing the
best for their friends regardless of utility or
pleasure. Aristotle calls it a “… complete sort of
friendship between people who are good and
alike in virtue …” (Nicomachean Ethics,
1156b07-08). This type of friendship is long
lasting and tough to obtain because these
types of people are hard to come by and it
takes a lot of work to have a complete,
virtuous friendship.
According to Aristotle:
 Happiness is the ultimate end and purpose of
human existence.
 Happiness is not pleasure, nor is it virtue. It is
the exercise of virtue.
 Happiness cannot be achieved until the end of
one's life. Hence it is a goal and not a
temporary state
 Happiness is the perfection of human nature.
Since man is a rational animal, human
happiness depends on the exercise of his
reason.
 Happiness depends on acquiring a moral
character, where one displays the virtues of
courage, generosity, justice, friendship, and
citizenship in one's life. These virtues involve
striking a balance or "mean" between an
excess and a deficiency.
 Happiness requires intellectual contemplation,
for this is the ultimate realization of our
rational capacities.