This Week We're Discussing Plato's Theory Of Knowledge

This Week Were Discussing Platos Theory Of Knowledge He Believes T

This week we’re discussing Plato’s theory of knowledge. He believes that we use an idea of something to classify or figure out where something we’re seeing in life among our ideas. For example, I have an idea of a triangle so when I see a triangular “Yield†sign along the road I know the shape and, in our traffic sign lingo, that it means to give way or let someone pass before proceeding. But the triangle sign is not a perfect triangle, for example the 3 corners are rounded out to avoid having 3 sharp points. And we might say also that an Egyptian pyramid is a triangular shape, which it is.

But it doesn’t really look anything like the triangle shape of a “Yield†sign. Our ideas must allow for a lot of leeway of things that fit into them. But, at some point, we must say “No†that’s not a triangle, or “No†that’s not a horse, or “No†that’s not love. You get the point. To explore Plato’s notion of ideas or ideals, let’s use the question of our idea of “loveâ€.

Plato wrote an entire book exploring what love is (it’s called the “Symposiumâ€), and there were many different answers that the speakers in his book proposed. But we’ll use something more modern as a way into our topic for our topic: What is love.†Rebecca Goldstein’s 2014 book titled “Plato at the GooglePlex, gives a story on what is love, presented as a “Letter to Margoâ€. Our discussions questions are listed below the “Dear Margo†letter from Goldstein. Dear Margo : I’m engaged to a wonderful man, who’s highly successful in his field, the same field I’m in. My problem is that my fiancé thinks too highly of me!

Somehow he’s gotten an inflated view of how talented and brilliant I am, and no matter how banal a suggestion I make, he infuses it with profound insights. Most of the time these insights are really his own, loosely inspired by some half-baked thing I’ve said. Sometimes he takes ‘my’ opinions so seriously that he uses them to challenge his own views, and ends up proclaiming that only ‘I’ could have seen through his fallacies. All of this makes me nervous, most of all because I think that eventually, after his infatuation wears off, he’s going to see me for what I am and feel he’s been deceive – which, of course he has been, even if the deception is really self-deception. On the other hand, I have to admit that it feels great to be praised to the skies by someone I so respect. It feels so good, in fact, that I never correct him and just accept the credit and compliments as if I deserved them. What should I do? I love this guy to bits and don’t want to lose him – not now and not in the future when his fog of love lifts. Yours truly, Teetering on Pedestal (Rebecca Goldstein, Plato at the GooglePlex , p.267, 2014)

Discussion Questions

• How would you respond to this letter if you were Dear Margo? Is this love?
• What makes you sure of your position of the love spoken of here? In other words, what is your idea of love?
• Do love and deception have anything to do with each other? And if so, how can any relationship last?
• Watch the video linked below on Plato and “What is Love?†and then answer this question: With all the notions of love discussed in the video, how do you imagine Plato might address the letter to Margo?

Paper For Above instruction

Plato's theory of knowledge fundamentally revolves around the concept of innate ideas or forms, which are perfect, unchanging ideals that exist independently of our sensory experiences. According to Plato, our knowledge is a process of recollection; we recognize these perfect forms through reasoning and philosophical inquiry, rather than discovering new information through sensory perception. This philosophical perspective offers a profound lens through which to analyze complex human experiences, such as love, especially when intertwined with notions of deception and self-awareness, as presented in Goldstein’s “Plato at the GooglePlex” and the letter to Margo.

In considering Plato’s theory of forms, love is often viewed as an embodiment of an ideal form—pure, eternal, and unchanging. For Plato, true love is not merely physical attraction or emotional infatuation, but a pursuit of the highest form of beauty and goodness. The dialogue “Symposium” presents love as a ladder of ascent, beginning with physical attraction and culminating in the love of the form of the Good. When applied to the letter from Margo, Plato might interpret the fiancé’s inflated view of Margo as a misperception, a mistaken belief akin to mistaking a shadow for the real form. Plato would argue that genuine love requires knowledge of the true, unchanging essence of the beloved, not superficial admiration or delusions caused by infatuation.

The letter also touches upon deception—both conscious and unconscious—that influences relationships. Goldstein’s depiction of the fiancée’s admiration highlights how love, in its lesser forms, can be intertwined with ego and illusions. If love is based on an inaccurate perception or an idealized image, it fosters deception. Plato would caution that such illusions hinder the soul’s journey toward recognizing true forms. Only by ascending beyond superficial appearances can lovers attain genuine understanding and harmony, leading to durable love rooted in truth rather than illusion.

Furthermore, Plato’s idea of love implies an aspirational pursuit of truth and beauty, requiring existential and moral self-awareness. In the context of the letter, the narrator’s acknowledgment of untruths suggests an internal conflict between superficial praise and the desire for authentic connection. Plato would emphasize the necessity of self-knowledge and philosophical insight to distinguish genuine love from infatuation. Through this lens, lasting relationships depend on a shared pursuit of higher ideals, rather than fleeting appearances or self-deceptions.

Regarding how Plato might respond to the letter, he would likely advise Margo that true love involves recognition of the soul’s capacity to grasp the immutable forms. He might caution her that basing love on illusions or inflated perceptions risks spiritual stagnation. Instead, he would encourage her to seek a relationship grounded in mutual understanding of higher ideals—truth, beauty, and goodness—beyond superficial flattery or ego-driven admiration. Genuine love, in Plato’s view, is a reflection of the soul’s alignment with the perfect forms, fostering eternal harmony rather than transient infatuation.

References

• Goldstein, R. (2014). Plato at the GooglePlex: Why Philosophy Won’t Go Away. W. W. Norton & Company.
• Plato. (2000). The Symposium. Translated by Alexander Nehamas & Paul Woodruff. Hackett Publishing.
• Taylor, C. (1999). Love Essays. Harvard University Press.
• Nussbaum, M. (1986). The Fragility of Goodness: Luck and Ethics in Greek Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
• Campbell, L. (2014). The Philosophy of Love: A Guide to the Future of Humanity. Routledge.
• Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University Press.
• Sorabji, R. (2006). Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation. Oxford University Press.
• Rowe, C. (1995). The Phaedrus. Oxford University Press.
• Reeve, C. D. C. (1990). Philosopher-Kings: The Argument of Plato’s Republic. Princeton University Press.
• Kraut, R. (2018). The Philospohy of Love. Oxford University Press.