Scan barcode
alyssaindira's review
2.0
Read an excerpt of this for Ethics class. Wasn't the entire book, but I still read some and am done with reading it. So there. Take that.
pr_load's review against another edition
3.0
Socrates meets up with his friend and Mathematician Theodorus, and Theodorus remarks that he's got a truly exceptional student called Theatetus. Socrates calls Theatetus over to ascertain whether or not Theodorus is telling the truth, and fulfill his role as a midwife to extract the baby of wisdom growing from Theodorus and see if its good or not. What ensues is a series of dialogues (With Socrates doing most of the talking) on the topic of what is KNOWLEDGE. They go through three different theories on love before coming to the conclusion that Theodorus does not actually know what knowledge is, and thus the metaphorical baby is to be tossed. On the bright side, at least now Theodorus knows enough to know that he doesn't know what knowledge is.
lonelytown's review
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.25
Me duele la cabeza como no tienen idea, no aguanto más
emmanuelbg's review against another edition
3.0
Thaetetus is an inquiry into epistemology, how knowledge ought be defined and based on what conditions. One interesting thing about the work is the digression Socrates makes in the middle of it to discuss whether nature is of a changing nature (Becoming) or if there's a permanent unity behind (Being).
Apart from that, however, I found the dialogue lacking in substance. It seems to embroil itself in a technical analysis of correct judgements and when they are possible, but this doesn't lead to anywhere. It ends up giving a definition of knowledge that is convincing and seems to hold up to close scrutinity, but I feel like the dialogue could have been more concise without losing essence.
Nietzsche's critique of Plato's dialogues as "self-congratulatory, childish pieces of writing" makes more sense every time I read him. I fail to see the brilliance which makes Plato such a distinguished figure in philosophical discourse.
Apart from that, however, I found the dialogue lacking in substance. It seems to embroil itself in a technical analysis of correct judgements and when they are possible, but this doesn't lead to anywhere. It ends up giving a definition of knowledge that is convincing and seems to hold up to close scrutinity, but I feel like the dialogue could have been more concise without losing essence.
Nietzsche's critique of Plato's dialogues as "self-congratulatory, childish pieces of writing" makes more sense every time I read him. I fail to see the brilliance which makes Plato such a distinguished figure in philosophical discourse.
sinead_abernathy's review against another edition
4.0
μάλα γὰρ φιλοσόφου τοῦτο τὸ πάθος, τὸ θαυμάζειν·
(and the rest is rust and stardust)
(and the rest is rust and stardust)
zb1113's review against another edition
3.0
Plato's rebuttal to empiricism (knowledge as perception/man is measure of all things). Knowledge can't be grounded only in our mind, but in something mind-independent to escape arbitrariness. The harmony of our interpretations leads us away from relativism/flux. Knowledge of object/familiarity vs knowledge of proposition. Is there such a things as false knowledge? How to account for knowledge of dreams?
rosekk's review
3.0
It's a shame anyone who write a book on philosophy in Plato's style these days would be instantly marked down as pretentious, because it does actually make digging down into questions and assumptions easier to follow.
Unfortunately, of all the many subjects Plato gives this treatment, this covers one of the ones I've come to find least interesting. There was a time when I found ontology a great (if frustrating) puzzle. These the frustration has overtaken the intrigue, and then settled down into boredom. It's just not a topic I can bring myself to feel invested in anymore. For that reason I couldn't properly judge this text on its own merits, because my own failure to engage with the subject matter was blotting out my view of the text.
Unfortunately, of all the many subjects Plato gives this treatment, this covers one of the ones I've come to find least interesting. There was a time when I found ontology a great (if frustrating) puzzle. These the frustration has overtaken the intrigue, and then settled down into boredom. It's just not a topic I can bring myself to feel invested in anymore. For that reason I couldn't properly judge this text on its own merits, because my own failure to engage with the subject matter was blotting out my view of the text.