 In continuation with the previous lecture, which was primarily dealing with Plato's theory of ideas, we would examine some related concepts, particularly his theory of knowledge. So, in Plato these two things are intimately related, his theory of knowledge is intimately linked with this theory of knowledge. So, we will see those issues related to these two concepts, their interrelationships in today's lecture. So, the topics which we are planning to cover in this lecture are the parable of the cave. This is very interesting because in continuation with what we discussed in the previous lecture about theory of ideas, this theory of ideas can be further clarified with the help of this parable. So, then after that we will see the analogy of vision, which would rather take us to explain his theory of knowledge and which is supplemented by another very important concept, the refutation of perceptual knowledge. Because Plato is one philosopher who never gives importance to perception at all, there is absolutely no room for perception in his theory of knowledge. He would say that whatever you gather gain, whatever knowledge you gain through perception, sense perception is to be refuted. Again in this connection, we have to see if perceptual knowledge is refuted, if knowledge gain from perception is treated as a mistaken knowledge, then how do you get knowledge about reality? How do you understand reality at all? So, here he introduces dialectical method, which is again we can see his refers to Socrates, because it was Socrates was the person who was actually engaged in developing this method. Of course, in Socrates life, probably this method was not developed in the sense in which it is employed by Plato in his dialogues. Socrates would have practiced it with of course, certain intentions in his mind, but Plato further develops it into a very matured philosophical method and in association with all these things, we will see his theory of soul. So, now let us examine this Socrates speaking with Glockon in one of his dialogues. So, Socrates says, I just read it out and now let me show in figure, how far our nature is enlightened or unenlightened. Imagine human beings living in a cave, which has an opening towards the light and reaching all along the den, here they have been from their childhood and here their legs and necks chained, so that they cannot move and can only see before them being prevented by the chains from turning round their heads, above and behind them a fire is blazing at his distance and between the fire and the prisoners, there is a raised way and you will see, if you look a low wall built along the way like the screen which marinate players have in front of them, over which they show the puppets. Then Glockon says, I see and do you see men passing along the wall carrying all sorts of vessels, the statues and figures of animals made of wood and stone and various materials which appear over the wall, some of them are talking other silent and Glockon says, you have shown me a strange image and they are strange prisoners, because they are all chained from the very birth, from the very childhood they are chained and they are not able to turn their neck back and see what is happening behind them and behind them there is fire and in front of them there is a wall, so whatever objects move in between the fire and the wall would be reflected, their images would be reflected in the wall which is their in front of them. Like ourselves and see only, they see only their own shadows, that is what Socrates was trying to assert, they can see only their own shadows or shadows of one another which the fire throws on the opposite wall of the cave and Glockon says, true how could they see anything, but the shadows if they were never allowed to move their heads and of the objects which are being carried in the like manner, they would only see the shadows and if they were able to converse with one another, would they not suppose that they were naming what was actually before them, very true and suppose further that the prison had an echo which came from the other side, would they not be sure of to fancy when one of the pauses by spoke that the voice which they heard came from the passing shadow, no question to them the truth would be literally nothing, but the shadows of the image. So, this is what Socrates was trying to communicate, so this is Plato's famous allegory of the cave. So, humans are imprisoned in the cave, cave is a human body, so when you try to understand what does it stand for, cave is here the human body, it stands for the human body and the chains are the senses. So, Plato actually tries to tell us that there is a human soul which is pure, which is imperishable, which is eternal, but this human soul is chained within a body and is covered by the senses. So, in one sense it is chained the soul is unable to see the reality and there is a bright light outside of the cave that produces shadows on the wall and the prisoners interpret the shadows as their reality, but what is it this is mere opinion. So, Plato would say that this these prisoners would think that these shadows are the reality, so they would all talk about these shadows and the sound produced by them, so for them that is reality and for Plato this talk about the shadow or all these information they get about these shadows are only opinions, they are not knowledge because they are so confused, my opinion would be different from another person's opinion, ours is all we are all locked inside the prison house of our body and the chains of our sense organs. Those people who are ignorant and live in the inferior world of sense objects are compared to prisoners in a cave. So, Plato ultimately tells us that you know there are most of us who live in this world, who consider this world as real, who treat the objects in this world as ultimate realities are actually having a very inferior kind of an existence. We are ignorant and live in the inferior world of sense objects, they are change and are only able to look in one direction, they are not able to see what exactly reality is because they are change the sense organs will always drag us to the world of particularities particular objects in this world. They have a fire behind them and wall in front between them and the wall there is nothing all that they see are shadows of themselves and objects behind them cast on the wall by the light of the fire. For them these shadows are realities, so they think that they are real, they have no idea about what exactly what actually realities. So, here I have tried to picturize the cave imagery this is the fire which you see behind and these are the people who are change and they are change all over the body. So, you can see the change here and this is the wall which is there in front of them and these are objects. See suppose an object is kept here these people would not be able to see the real object because they cannot turn their heads back instead they could see only the shadows which are reflected on the wall in front of them by means of the fire. And these people consider these shadows as ultimate reality and here the world outside which are the objects which is lighted by the sun is treated as wisdom and the person and change as sense organs as already told you and shadows are the sensible world. So, the light here stands for enlightenment and wisdom then the person and change they represent as I have already mentioned the sense organs in body and shadow the sensible world. So, when we go to the details at least some men see this is the climax of Plato's parable of the cave at least one man or some men succeed in escaping from the cave to the light of the sun. So, what will happen in such an event for the first time he sees the real things and becomes aware that he had either to been deceived by shadows. So, this is the moment of enlightenment the moment of ecstasy he realizes this person who comes out realizes that either to he was been deceived by the shadows he was not living the real life he was not perceiving or understanding the real world. So, now reality comes to him if he thinks that it is his duty to help his fellow prisoners also to escape from the prison house then he is a guardian the ruler of the people. So, he goes back to this people in the cave and tell them that look the reality the what you see in front of you is not real that they as they are mere shadows reality is something else you have to come with me I will show you the reality. So, this person will go back and he is now capable of rolling capable of rather helping his fellow prisoners to escape from the cave and this is very interesting because Plato has a new topia a political utopia where the state is ruled by such people who are guardians who have this real vision and wisdom of a philosopher. So, there is a concept of philosopher king those people who have escape from the prison house of body and sense organs and who are now able to see reality face to face they are the rulers. Now, the theory of ideas is connected with the theory of knowledge. So, this is what we are now trying to understand the relationship between metaphysics and epistemology. In one sense these two things are interrelated theory of ideas linked with epistemology or theory of knowledge and when you say that this dichotomy on the one hand we have already seen that there is Plato maintains a very strict dichotomy between reality and appearance. Ideas alone are real for Plato and sensible world is treated as an appearance. So, this is the fundamental dichotomy fundamental metaphysical dichotomy which lies at the bottom at the foundation of Plato's philosophical theory and when it comes to ideas they are we have genuine knowledge when we talk about theory of knowledge. Genuine knowledge is possible only about these ideas it is only it is about these ideas we have real knowledge and when it comes to sensible world of appearance a world which is exposed to us or we have access to by means of sense perception of it is mere opinion it is not knowledge, but mere opinion. The problem with opinion is that number one different people can have different opinions number two the same person may have one opinion today and he might change his opinion tomorrow. So, opinions are not fixed they cannot be dependent upon if at all you depend on something it should be knowledge and knowledge should be on realities which are unchanging and imperishable. And here as far as genuine knowledge is concerned they are absolutely certain and infallible, but opinions are fallible and mistaken they are unreal they are only appearances. This slide gives you a picture about the interrelationship between Plato's metaphysics and his epistemology how this fundamental dichotomy plays a very important role in a scheme of things. Now, let us see here a very interesting observation by one of the important 20th century philosophers, Matan Russell when he writes about Plato's knowledge opinion distinction he brings out a very interesting aspect about this distinction which Plato originally maintains. So, what he says is that if I think it is going to snow then it is an opinion if I later if later I see it is snowing then it is knowledge, but the subject matter is the same on both occasions. So, this is normally what we do I think that it is going to snow and after half an hour it actually snows. So, here the subject matter of my opinion as well as what is happening now after half an hour there is one and the same, but for Plato knowledge and opinion must be concerned with different subject matters. This is very interesting because as in the previous slide as shown knowledge is about realities about ideas opinions are about sensible objects or sense perceptions. So, the object of opinion and knowledge are also different, but in the case of the snow example which Russell had cited it is shown that they are one and the same that is why Plato is a hardcore reductionist a monist in that sense. What can at any time be a matter of opinion can never be a matter of knowledge at all for Plato because they are two different kind of entities. Reality deals with ideas which are imperishable and knowledge deals with ideas which are imperishable and opinions deal with sensible objects which cannot be dependent upon and as far as the question of knowledge is concerned we have to attach it with the ideas and opinion about the particular sensible appearances. So, here again we are trying to move from metaphysics to epistemology from theory of reality to theory of knowledge. Let us see this is another very interesting analogy of vision. So, when we see an object this is what the analogy is when what happens when you see an object and you need an eye the eye is compared as the soul which I have already mentioned which is pure which is which is eternal and imperishable, but which is unfortunately chained in the present house of the body. So, the eye is compared here in this analogy with the soul and sun as a souls of light is nothing but the truth or goodness which we have discussed in the previous lecture which is treated as by Plato as the sum of boredom the ultimate reality. So, republic says I read when the soul is firmly fixed on the domain where truth and reality shine resplendent in it apprehends and knows them and appears to possess reason, but when it inclines to that region which is mingled with darkness the world of becoming and passing away it opines only and it urges blended and it shifts its opinions either and either and again seems as if it lacked reason. So, what is it I will explain this to explain the difference between clear intellectual vision and the confused vision of sense perception this is what Plato was trying to do following the fundamental dichotomy he maintained he has he has actually initiated in his theory of knowledge. So, difference between clear intellectual vision and confused vision of sense perception the eye as I already mentioned is a soul the sun is a souls of light to truth or goodness light is also a symbol of wisdom then again darkness is complete ignorance, but again in twilight there is confused vision. So, there are these are three stages why this analogy of vision has been taken by Plato because sight is different from other senses since it requires not only the eye and the object, but also light. So, that is the reason why he takes up this particular analogy and here the sun this is again from republic the sun not only furnishes to visibles the power of visibility, but it also provides for their generation and growth and nurture through it nurture through it is not itself generation in like manner than the objects of knowledge not only receive from the presence of the good they are being known, but their very existence and essence is derived them from it though the good itself is not essence, but still transcends essence in dignity and surpassing power. So, what is it? So, here clear sunshine where we can see the objects very clearly as I already mentioned the three stages or the three possible ways in which we encounter objects in the world and in twilight what happens is that we are not very sure of what is it? There is something in front of me, but I am not able to distinguish it from I mean what exactly it is? So, there is confused vision and then in pitch darkness I am not able to see anything. So, absolutely nothing is seen here and we have here we can say that we have access to the world of ideas when there is enlightenment. So, only when there is clear sunshine we can see the world clearly similarly only when there is enlightenment only when there is wisdom we have access to the world of ideas and the world of passing things is confused twilight world and there is nothing worthy to be called knowledge to be derived from the senses. So, that is the ultimate conclusion play to derive from this analogy the only real knowledge has to do with concepts we have already mentioned it in the previous lecture it is about ideas or forms or essences. Now, to substantiate to supplement what he has already stated later would refute perceptual knowledge the very legitimacy of perceptual knowledge. It is being stated from the very outset that perceptual world is in a constant flux we all know everything changes in the perceptual world there is no certain knowledge possible about the perceptual world because things which we see today would not be there tomorrow things might change their nature their qualities are going to change. So, everything is uncertain in such a world things appear to us as something now and perception is about such things. So, when I perceive something and say that the rose is red I am talking about the rose which is there in front of me at this moment and it is red after one week what will happen to the rose I do not know I have to come back and see. So, perceptual knowledge is always about appearances and appearances are always momentary they are as it is right now in front of me perception tells us about what something is there is a very interesting aspect to perception also tries to tell us about what something is what is the case, but there are problems perceptual world is a world that is in a process of becoming. So, there is a apparent contradiction between what something is and what something is becoming. So, an object which is under constant process of becoming is under constant change. So, there is no state of is that object does not exist as something more than a moment. So, how can you have knowledge genuine knowledge about that object. So, perception deals with knowledge of what becomes and not knowledge of what is. So, this is the interesting distinction play domains perception deals only with knowledge of what becomes the change and not what is. So, what is the exact essence the unchangeable the imperishable the nonchangeable essence of an object is never revealed in perception. So, here just to animate it when you talk about a perception in traditional epistemology when you talk about perception you have the subject of perception and the object of perception. So, there is some sort of an interaction between the subject and object, but even we can understand that from the very outset this true that both the subject and the object are changing. So, here we are reminded of Heraclitus who famously said one cannot step into the same river twice, because both one cell and the river would be changing. So, here both the subject and the object are subjected to change. Now, as a result of the relationship between the subject and object we get perceptual knowledge and since both subject and object are under constant change the perceptual knowledge also changes. So, in this process what happens to knowledge change in the recipient causes the change in the present. So, nothing is fixed nothing can be certain everything is in a process of constant flux and change. This is where Plato initiates a dialogue between Socrates and Theatratus as student of mathematics the question is what is knowledge and this particular dialogue is or this section in this dialogue is very interesting and it is very crucial in understanding Plato's theory of knowledge. I am not going to the details of it, because there are several stages actually there are four ways in which Theatratus tries to answer Socrates question what is knowledge and each stage Socrates refutes it and ultimately shows that perception is not a valid genuine source of knowledge perception can never take us to the knowledge the domain of knowledge. Socrates ask the question what is knowledge and initially Theatratus gives some examples this is what knowledge in geometry in mathematics this happens. So, he tries to point out refer to actually what happens when man knows, but then Socrates says that this is not what I want what I want is a definition of knowledge what you mean by knowledge you are giving instances of knowledge forget about that you tell me what exactly knowledge is and it is here the classical the dialogue between these people are initiated with this proposals given by Theatratus who comes up with three definitions of knowledge. The first one is knowledge is perception the second one is knowledge is true belief the third one is knowledge is true belief with an account actually the second and third are more or less related the third one is only a supplemented form of the second one, but it is a very important supplementation which all the three definitions are refuted by Socrates Plato's Socrates. So, the problem is that when you take up the first definition the first definition is knowledge is perception what happens is that there are two philosophers two important philosophers who come into picture here the philosophical background of this position is actually as far as Plato is concerned Plato's Socrates is concerned this statement knowledge is perception is being analyzed by analyzing the philosophical positions advocated by Protagoras and Heraclitus. So, Protagoras says man is a measure of all things famous statement by the sophist man is the measure of all things and there are many kinds of perceptions. So, this is what basically Plato says or Socrates says there are many type of many kinds of perceptions and many kinds of perceptions say for example, human beings perceive animals perceive magmen also have perceptions and in dream also we perceive since man is a measure of all things or rather perception is knowledge. Let us not talk about Protagoras here for Protagoras is it is very clear he reduces this to man and to some extent to sensible human beings, but when you take up this identification of perception with knowledge you have to deal with all kinds of perceptions all types of perceptions by every recipient. So, the recipient need not necessarily be a human being it can be animals as well. So, how do you make that distinction how do you distinguish between the perception of a mad man and the perception of a normal man all on equal footing you cannot put all of them you cannot keep all of them on equal footing, but if you once you say perception is knowledge then that is too vague. So, now we come to Heraclitus one cannot step into the same world twice we cannot make any assertion about anything because everything keeps on changing the next moment it is another object to talk about something there must be some point where we can fix its meaning. So, that is the point which later was trying to assert to talk about something when we talk about a man. So, this man is running this man is an athlete. So, when I say that a particular person is an athlete say Sachin Tendulkar is a cricketer. So, this assertion necessitates that I should be able to fix the meaning of some terms say for example, most prominently what I mean by athlete in this example of course, Sachin Tendulkar is a cricketer. So, what I mean by a cricketer there are different cricketers Kabilti Sunil Gavaskar all these people were cricketers once upon a time now they are no longer cricketers they are doing other things now. So, what you mean by a cricketer. So, later would say that there is an ideal cricketer the essence of cricketer to which all these people participate when they play cricket and again this is advanced by Bertrand Russell refutation of perceptual knowledge Bertrand Russell actually describes what Plato does by summarizing Plato's views. So, what he says is that we perceive through eyes and ears rather than with them through them not with them and but some of our knowledge is not connected with any one particular or any sense organ at all. For example, sounds and colors are unlike there is no special organ of for existence and on existence likeness and unlikeness sameness and differences unity and numbers in general honorable and dishonorable and good and bad and the mind contemplates some things through its own instrumentality others through the bodily faculties. So, that is what certain some of these things are through bodily faculties but some of these things are contemplated through its own instrumentality by the mind. We perceive hard and soft through touch but it is in the mind that judges that they exist and that they are contrary hard and soft we perceive by touching yeah this table is hard and a cotton is soft. So, but it is the mind which judges that they exist and that they are contrary only the mind can reach existence and we cannot reach truth if we do not reach existence. So, this is the point this is the point which Plato also makes the point about existence only the mind can reach existence and we cannot reach truth if we do not reach existence we cannot know things through the senses alone through the senses alone we cannot know that that things exist. So, knowledge about things always involves knowledge about their existence as well. So, about their existence we never knew it through senses the things of existence which belong to sense perceptions are not themselves objects of sense perception. So, this is the distinction which Plato maintains things of existence which belong to sense perception and are not themselves objects of sense perception and objects of perception are private to the senses being our existence is the common feature of all things this cannot be perceived by the senses. So, Plato ultimately tells us that what is important is not that information which we derive through senses knowledge consist in reflection not in impressions. So, he ultimately takes us to this point that reflection is very important and reflection is done by the mind and there absolutely no role for sense perception. Perception is not knowledge because it is no part in apprehending truth since it has none in apprehending existence and again senses do not help you they hinder the clear vision of the intellect which is as shown in the cave analogy. Now, the question is if this is the case then how do you know reality which is beyond sense perception. So, Plato was trying to show that you know how do you know reality which we definitely cannot know through sense perception which is beyond the particularities the particular objects in this universe. So, here comprehension of the universal idea from the scattered particulars is what we understand as the formation of concepts. So, only by understanding only by grasping this concepts you can have knowledge about these ideas knowledge about realities and these ideas are true universals classifying concepts. So, that you actually what knowledge consist in knowing this concepts classifying them relating them combining comparing dividing synthesizing and analyzing concepts. So, this philosophical enterprise of Plato aims it understanding concepts and that is the process which is known as the dialectical method which helps you to do that. So, the dialectical method is nothing but a bothered by means of which the human mind is capable of thinking in terms of concepts. It is an art of thinking in terms of concepts nothing else you are absolutely cut off from the sensible world, but you are contemplating. So, that traditional image of a philosopher as a person who thinks who contemplates in darkness probably or in solitude because he has nothing to do with what is happening in the world is no longer living in the world of particular objects. He is actually dwelling in a place along with the universal ideas and concepts and this is actually this method is originally employed by Socrates. So, very interestingly Plato takes a lot from Socrates here and this theory again it presupposes the mortality of this realities the ideas as I already discussed in the previous lecture. Then again the idea that knowledge is about essences, but also very importantly the immortality of the soul the knower because to know the immortal that to know the imperishable and eternal realities you need a soul which is also immortal and imperishable and eternal. So, the immortality of the soul and all knowledge is recollection that is another very interesting theory initiated by Plato and from this we can derive this famous Socrates intellectual midwifery. Socrates always considered him as a midwife as a intellectual midwife philosophy is a search for wisdom. So, what is dialectical method as I already mentioned it is thinking in terms of concepts to capture the essences that is a objective of this dialectical method and Socrates pretends that he does not know anything and ask questions in this process he exposes the confusions and contradictions of his opponent. He forces them to commit contradictions soon his opponents realize that he is the master of the situation. So, this is what happens. So, he pretends that he does not know anything or he knows very little about it and as if he is raising very innocent questions what is this what do you mean by exactly can you explain it. So, in this manner Socrates approaches his opponents and in that process what happens is he forces his opponents to come up with exact clear definitions and if there is an element of confusion then they are bound to come up with contradictions. So, Socrates ultimately force his opponents to make contradictions and once they contradict they realize that there is some problem with them and gradually again they realize that Socrates knows better than them. So, here there is an example Trasimachus who says that justice is the interest of the stronger a rich Plato Socrates encounters this view. So, he says that the government rich and powerful can make and change laws ordinary people cannot might is right the single principle of justice is the interest of the stronger. So, now there is an argument with Socrates in defining justice Socrates ask in defining justice you have yourself used the word interest which I would also use yes I just read it out. Now, we have both agreed that justice is interest of some sort for you of the stronger yes you admit that it is just for subjects to obey the rulers you may also agree that rulers of status are not absolutely infallible and they are sometimes liable to earth. Hence in making their laws they may sometimes make them rightly and sometimes not absolutely when they make them rightly this is again Socrates when they make them rightly they make them agreeably to their interest when they are mistaken contrary to their interest yes and the laws which they make must be obeyed by their subjects and that is what you call justice doubtless. Then justice according to your argument is not only obedience to the interest of the stronger, but the reverse. So, from here onwards his opponent is confused what is that you are saying now Socrates explains the rulers may be mistaken about their own interest in what they command and also that to obey them is injustice yes then justice is not to be for the interest of the stronger when the rulers unintentionally command things to be done which are to their own injury now his opponent is a little confused. For if as you say justice is the obedience which the subject renters to their commands in that case the weaker are commanded to do not what is for the interest, but what is for the injury of the stronger again confused. So, Socrates is gradually bringing his opponent to realize his confusion. So, Socrates you acknowledge that rulers may sometimes command what is not for their own interest and that for subjects to obey them is justice yes I did which means for subjects to do what was commanded by the rulers is just yes justice is the interest of the stronger yes while admitting both these propositions you further acknowledge that the stronger may command the weaker who are his subjects to do what is not for his own interest this means justice is the injury quite as much as the interest of the stronger again confused or by the interest of the stronger do you mean what the stronger thought to be his interest certainly not I will not call him who is mistaken the stronger at the time many is mistaken, but you admitted that the ruler was not infallible, but might be sometimes mistaken you argue like an informer Socrates now he is getting irritated his opponent realizing that Socrates is unbeasing him is getting irritated do you mean for example that he who is mistaken about the sick is a physician in that he is mistaken or that he who owes in arithmetic or grammar is an arithmetician or grammarian at the time when he is making the mistake in respect of the mistake true we say that the physician or arithmetician or grammarian has made mistakes, but neither the grammarian nor any other person of skill ever makes a mistake in so far as he is what his name implies none of them are unless their skill fails them and then they cease to be skilled artist, but he is commonly said to her and I adopted the common mode of speaking against Socrates says, but to be perfectly accurate since you are such a lover of accuracy we should say that the ruler in so far as he is a ruler is honoring and being honoring always commands that which is for his own interest and the subjects is required to execute his commands and therefore as I said at first and now repeat justice is the interest of the stronger. To avoid any misunderstanding occurring between us in future let me ask in what sense do you speak of a ruler or stronger whose interest as you were saying he being the superior it is just that the inferior should execute is he a ruler in the popular or in the strict sense of the term in the strictest of all senses is the physician taken in that strict sense of which you are speaking a healer of the sick or a maker of money and remember that I am now speaking of the true physician now Thrasi Marcus says healer of the sick and the pilot that is to say the true pilot is he a captain of sailors or a mere sailor a captain of sailors the circumstances that he sails in the ship is not to be taken into account neither is he to be called a sailor the name pilot by which is distinguished as nothing to do with sailing, but is significant of a skill and of his authority over the scalers sailors very true now every art has an interest for which the art has to consider and provide yes that is the aim of an art and the interest of any art is the perfection of it this had nothing else what do you mean I mean what I may illustrate negatively by the example of the body suppose you were to ask me whether the body is self-sufficing or has wants I should say I should reply certainly the body has wants for the body may be ill and required to be cured and has therefore interest to which the art of medicine ministers and this is the origin and intention of medicine as you will acknowledge am I not right Thrasi Marcus says quite right, but is the art of medicine or any other art faulty or deficient in any quality in the same way that the I may be deficient in sight or the ear fail of hearing and therefore requires another art to provide for the interest of seeing and hearing has art in itself I say any similar liability to fault or defect and does every art require another supplementary art to provide for its interest and what that another and another without end or have the arts to look only after their own interest or have they no need either of themselves or another having no faults or defects they have no need to correct them either by the exercise of their own art or of any other now Thrasi Marcus says they have only to consider the interest of the subject matter for every art remains pure and faultless while remaining true that is to say while perfect and unimpaired yes clearly then medicine does not consider the interest of medicine, but the interest of the body true nor does the art of housemanship consider the interest of the art of housemanship, but the interest of the horse yes neither to any other arts care for themselves for they have no needs they care only for that which is the subject of their art true, but surely the arts are the superiors and rulers of their own subjects oh, but yeah yes this is what Thrasi Marcus now says now is visibly confused then no science or art considers or enjoins the interest of the stronger or superior, but only the interest of the subject and weaker now he is completely confused then no physician in so far as he is a physician considers his own good in what he prescribes, but the good of his patient for the true physician is also a ruler having the human body as a subject and is not a mere money maker that has been admitted yes and the pilot likewise in the strict sense of the term is a ruler of sailors and not a mere sailor correct and such a pilot and ruler will provide and prescribe for the interest of the sailor who is under him and not for his own rulers interest now Thrasi Marcus has to accept it yes then there is no one in any rule who in so far as he is a ruler considers or enjoins what if for his own interest, but always what is for the interest of his subject are suitable to his art to that he looks and that alone he considers in everything which he says and does. So, this is the overall picture I have just read it out because to give a hand to the students about how actually a dialectical a dialogue progresses and when you try to understand the underlying notions of his theory of knowledge as I already mentioned the theory of the immortality of the salt is there knowledge as recollection comes into picture and intellectual mid-bifery comes. So, this picture will give you an idea you know there is Plato's idealism on the top you have appearance and reality here sensible objects are appearances ideas are real perception and reason body and the salt and these things are inferior in reality and these right hand things that is reality ideas reason and soul are superior in reality and goodness in Plato's scheme of thing. So, body and salt salt is more real and true than body philosopher should not be a slave to ordinary pressures this is what Plato says the philosopher must not care for only pressure he must be entirely concerned with the salt and not with the body and philosopher should try to free the salt from communion with the body. So, this is the ultimate objective of philosophy to free the salt from the communion of the body body is a hindrance in that position of knowledge and this thus culminates in a complete rejection of empirical knowledge. So, this picture will summarize it and this is also the tripraterate theory of salt which he advocates. So, in the middle you can see the rational aspect of the self where wisdom and knowledge comes and this particular aspect is dominant among the guardians or the rulers of the state and here on the left hand side you would see spirited valour energy and courage which is dominant among soldiers and this is appetitive aspect of the salt where desire dominates which will find among tradesmen. So, there are three types of human beings in Plato's ideal state the guardians are the rulers the soldiers protect and the tradesmen do other kinds of business trading and agriculture activities to conclude knowledge is recollection. So, that is what ultimately Plato's theory of knowledge says the salt processes absolute knowledge it is forgotten it due to the association with the body and absolute knowledge can be gathered only with clear intellectual vision and this is possible only when the salt is ineffected with the body hence all knowledge is recollection. So, the Plato ultimately condense that the human salt which is pure which is imperishable and eternal knows everything in advance it has a clear knowledge about the ideas which are also imperishable and abstract, but due to its association with the body the soul has forgotten it. Now, with the employment of conceptual the analytical thinking where thinking in terms of concepts the influence of the body and the sense organs can be minimized can be avoided can be bracketed completely and then the soul can graduate to the domain of knowledge and this process is actually it is nothing but a kind of recollection which it already knows which has forgotten now it recollects. So, all knowledge according to Plato is recollection and it is in this context Socrates advocates intellectual midwifery and midwife job is to help a woman to deliver the baby which is already there the baby which is there inside the body. Similarly, a philosopher is an intellectual midwife who helps other human beings to deliver to come up with knowledge and wisdom which is already there in their self to recollect he or she would help ordinary human beings to recollect what they already know. So, these are the references after which this lecture is prepared basically from three sources Bertrand Russell's history of western philosophy, Alfred Poverty's history of philosophy and Stanford's encyclopedia of philosophy it is also referred to many other books which are very minor. Thank you.