Until taking philosophy class and carefully dipping my toes into the realm of epistemology, I thought of knowledge as something pretentious. Something that studious people would keep in their arsenal, something that seldom gave teachers their undeserved arrogance. After my first philosophy class, I was not proven wrong but I was proven to be oblivious. The word "Knowledge" bared so many meanings and implications that it left me hanging clueless. The best I could do was simply read great philosopher's writings on theory of knowledge and attempt to get a grasp on the fundamentals of epistemology. One of those great minds were Plato, the ancient greek, the epitome of western philosophy whose ideologies still stands tall up to this date. In Theaetetus, Plato succeeds in proving the Dream Theory of knowledge to be false, yet does not to give his own definition of knowledge. Where as in the Republic, during constructing Kallipolis, Plato discusses knowledge, and expresses his explicit views on epistemology. After careful inspection of Plato's two different ideas on the nature of knowledge, I was able to come up with my own definition of knowledge and suggest the possibility to know what knowledge is. As a matter of process, my theory of knowledge is heavily influenced by both of Plato's works. In Theaetetus, Plato makes an logical approach to identify the nature of knowledge. In the early pages of Theaetetus, Plato introduces Dream Theory which defines knowledge as "knowledge of x

is true belief of x with an

account of x". Dream Theory is based on the hypothesis that there are two types of existents; complexes and simples, while complexes can be known, simples cannot. ("taking account" means to analyze a complex into components of simples) Plato's main concern for this theory is that the distinction between complex and components is extremely vague. If complexes are mere sums of composites, it goes without saying that in order to know what complex is, one must know what those composites are. This contradicts the hypothesis that simples cannot be known. On the other hand, If the whole of composites are more than mere sum of composites, this would imply that the whole has something missing from the sum. However, something missing makes the object neither sum nor a whole. Thus, the theory faces a dead end, thereby, Plato rejects the Dream Theory. In Republic, Plato approaches knowledge from an abstract point of view. Although Plato does not straightforwardly define knowledge, he gives an object of knowledge. Prior to discussion on knowledge there is a need to clarify a few Platonic concepts in the Republic. In chapter 9, Plato mentions his well-renowned allegory of line, sun and the cave. First, the line consists of four segments, A, B, C and D. Segment A and B represent the visible realms, the realm which we detect with our basic senses, more commonly known as reality. Segment C and D are the intelligible realms, constituted from unchanging and absolute entities, known as "Forms". These Forms allows us to sense the visible realm. According to Plato,

objects of knowledge should be exclusive to Forms. Among these Forms, the Form of the Good holds the utmost importance. According to Plato, Form of the Good is the source of every other Forms, thus the object of ultimate knowledge. The Form of the Good is symbolized as the sun, as the sun brings other beings to existence. Lastly, the allegory of the cave draws a scene where humans are since birth, tied into a cave with eyes fixed to the a wall inside the cave. Behind them is a fire and behind the fire are statues which casts shadows that they can see. It is merely the reflections that they recognize to be reality and they are oblivious to the true form of entities. Through this imagery, Plato implies the severeness of our ignorance. Yet, Plato leaves margin for hope when he mentions the existence philosophers who are capable of escaping from the cave and face the sun, and face the ultimate knowledge. In both Theaetetus and Republic, Plato eventually claims ignorance to what knowledge is. I do not have a lucid definition of knowledge either, however with my limited reasoning skills, I would say, to acquire knowledge of object x is to capture and assimilate the essence of object x with our cognition. Knowing is not only grasping the essence, but assimilating the essence with oneself. I would compare assimilating an essence tantamount to a moment of enlightenment, which very much resembles Plato's analogy imagery on confrontation of the sun. I also agree with Plato's argument that the object of knowledge should be the Form(essence) Essence must be a concept that underlies in everything we sense in the visual realm. One characteristic of essence is that an essence never stands alone. An essence is intertwined with other essences, since knowledge of a single object is rarely independent and can always be applied to or can be supported by other knowledges. This semantic interrelationship between knowledges is motivated from the Dream Theory; where it states that knowledge of x is, by definition is true belief plus an account of x. For example, the concept of color is intimately related to concepts such as shades, pigments tones and even design principles. So if a person was to assimilate the essence of color, he or she would also learn about shades, pigment, tone and principles of design. To discuss the nature of essence assimilation, to assimilate an essence is to appreciate the nature of an object with our minds. As the word "assimilate" suggests, acquiring knowledge is an intuitive process. To identify where the essence is located, it is located in the link between object x and a second (or countless) object y (or a, b, c, d…). As aforementioned, knowledge does not stand alone; the concept of object x is likely to be intimately related with the concept of object a, b, c and so on. For instance, essence of color would lie in the link between color, shade, pigment and tones. Likewise, essence of morality would lie in the link between morality and justice. Capturing the essence between object a and b would allow us to gain knowledge of both a and b. Then, it is crucial to decide weather acquiring knowledge is a product of series of empirical conducts or simply is an intellectual enlightenment. Clearly, in

Theaetetus Plato attempts to discern the nature of knowledge, in a series of logical progression, where as in Republic, knowledge is investigated based on conceptual means. According to my definition, knowledge should be in great relation with intuition. However, I think both view points from Plato has strong appeals. I propose a hybrid theory between the two view points; understanding the essence of object x is leaned towards a cognitive process rather than a series of logical algorithms. However, this point should be emphasized; through rigorous efforts and trials, it is possible to be infinitely close to understanding the essence of object. By definition, the state of being limitlessly close to assimilating an essence is technically different from actually assimilating an essence. In my viewpoint, such examples are sciences. By no means at all, I am disclaiming well established fields of science and the commendable achievements that scholars made so far. As a passionate scholar of biology, the extent of the expertise humanity has established in the field human immune system and its implication and pathology is phenomenal. In fact, the knowledge on fields such as digestive system, kinetic system and olfactory organs leave very little margin for amendments and it would be safe to assume that we have "knowledge" on these subjects. In a perspective, the intrinsic value of mastery gained through effort and the followed compensation could be more valuable than the value of a simple enlightenment. My theory of knowledge eventually concludes that it is definitely possible to acquire any sort of knowledge, even the knowledge on knowledge itself. To capture the essence of knowledge, one must look into objects that are in association with knowledge. In my opinion, the related objects of knowledge could be inquiry and passion. In order to learn what knowledge is, one should ceaselessly and passionately inquire what it is to "know". Hence, the essence of knowledge is located in the relationship between knowledge, inquiry and passion. Think of the mathematical notion of limit. (ex. ). As x approaches infinity, the value of f(x) becomes infinitely close to L. Likewise, as x approaches to ceaseless pursuit of knowledge, f(x) approaches understanding of essence of knowledge. In conclusion, a lot of my opinions of theory of knowledge stems from Plato's work on Republic and Theaetetus. The development of ideas such as essence and correlation between knowledges originates from Plato's thoughts. In that aspect, my theory is wide open and vulnerable to criticisms and even plagiarism. Most importantly, I fail to give an explanation regarding "How" to assimilate essence. However, the exclusive values of my theory is manifested in two qualities. One, the suggestion of a secondary method to attain (not technically) knowledge through approaching the limits, and second, the identification of essence of objects in the link between interrelated objects. These two characteristics are meant to set out an optimistic outlook on epistemology. If we carefully inspect the link between objects, we could find knowledge in it, and even if we fail to do so, with passion continuous inquiries, we would be step by

step further from the cave and closer to Plato's sun