GETTIER – Why Plato Would Reject Justified True Belief (a Platonic dialogue)

Hi everyone,

I’ve written a Platonic dialogue to highlight where Plato is fundamentally misunderstood when it comes to the widely accepted definition of knowledge.

GETTIER explores the following:

Socrates meets the philosopher Edmund Gettier to examine the classical definition of knowledge as “justified true belief.” Gettier’s objections are analyzed through Platonic concepts and questioned in terms of their philosophical scope.

At the core lies the question: Are contingent counterexamples sufficient to undermine the epistemic claim of this definition? The text argues that both Gettier and much of contemporary epistemology misread Plato through the lens of the analytic tradition.

The dialogue connects modern epistemological problems with Platonic ontology and asks in what sense knowledge must be tied to what truly is. The aim is to reinterpret the Gettier problem from an ontological perspective – as groundwork for the epistemological reorientation developed in my essay Justified True Crisis.

I hope the dialogue reads well – and perhaps even entertains a little.

Excerpt from the dialogue:

In Elysium,where the souls of the just walk beneath blooming olive trees and conversation never ceases, Socrates and Plato sat in the shade of a laurel tree. The air was serene, time had no urgency, and Logos hovered above all like a gentle light.

Plato (muttering restlessly): I can’t help myself, Socrates. Once again they speak in the upper world of knowledge as if it were a riddle for sophists. A certain Gettier claims, I’ve heard, that he has shaken our work—with a paper barely three pages long. If that suffices to topple an idea that has occupied us for a lifetime, then, oh Socrates, you may conduct the conversation. Good luck my friend! I know you’ll reveal... whatever it is one can “know” about such matters! (his voice fading as he walks away) And I wrote aporetic dialogues!
Socrates (smiling): Oh Plato, you always want truth to shine bright—but sometimes the path to the open air is slippery. Go, then. I will see whether this Gettier bears within him that unrest fit for philosophy.

Plato walks off into radiant Elysium. No sooner has he vanished than a stranger appears—squinting in the light, with a Western appearance and a probing gaze, as if he had a counterargument for everything.

Socrates: Welcome, friend. Your steps echo new upon this ground. I suppose you are that Gettier of whom many speak?
Edmund Lee Gettier III: That’s what they call me. Have you seen my family? Are you—Socrates?
Socrates (nodding): You will find them, when you are ready—and your friends, too. Tell me: shall I continue calling you by your surname? And yes, I am he.
Ed: Those who know me call me Ed—if that’s all right with you. Edmund feels too distant for dialogue. And yes, I come with a doubt. I'm always linked with a problem—even when praised, it’s a burden to constantly hear about “the Gettier problem.” (sighs)
Socrates (grinning): So be it, Ed. Doubt is a fine travel companion. I have heard of your problem—that idea that epist?m?, knowledge, is meta logou al?th?s doxa, or as some now say, “justified true belief”. That is a topic I will not ignore, even here, where some believe all matters have already been resolved.
Ed: I showed that one can believe something true, and even have good reasons for it—and yet we would hesitate to call it knowledge. (A low muttering is heard in the distance.)
Socrates (clearing his throat): Then you are either a wise man—or a disturber of the peace. For even with Theaetetus, we did not get much further. Perhaps Ed, your arrival is the next step in a long journey.

They walked a short way along the shimmering path until they came to a quiet place, where the view opened to the glassy waters of an eternal river. There, between white cypresses, Socrates and Ed sat on a marbleedged stone, untouched by time or weather. The sky above Elysium was clear and few birds could be seen— something began to stir in their dialogue, though the light remained sharp.

Socrates So then, Ed—you said that someone might hold a belief that is true, and even supported by reasons—yet we would still hesitate to call him knowledgeable. Tell me: what, in your view, is missing?
Ed (raises his hand to shield his eyes from the light): It seems something is missing that binds these conditions together—something that raises them to the level of knowledge: the justification, or what you call logos.
Socrates (nodding): An old word—often used, seldom understood. We examined it—in three forms, as I proposed them to Theaetetus. Would you like to revisit them with me? Plato is not fond of being misunderstood. Aporia is often as dear to him as genuine agreement is to me.
Ed (rubs his forehead): Socrates, I don’t remember— A mist of the Styx still clouds my memory.
Socrates (smiling): Then listen. What if logos meant only: the ability to express what one means? (He points upward toward the sky, to the birds above.) But I ask you: can a parrot, though it does not know, still speak words?
Socrates: Is speaking already knowing?
Ed: Hardly. A child often knows where its toy is—but couldn’t explain it. Language alone does not make knowledge.
Socrates: Well said. Then let us examine further. What if logos meant: breaking down a concept into its parts—like a craftsman dismantling a cart into “wheel” and “axle”? But I ask you: does one become an expert on carts simply by knowing that they are made of wheels?
Ed: No, certainly not. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. One can take everything apart—and still understand nothing.
Socrates: Wisely spoken. Then this remains: logos as that which sets a thing apart from all others—it particular way of being.
Socrates: But, Ed—Is there anyone who knows all the differences? Is that not a task for the gods?
Ed: So it seems. This form of logos doesn’t truly help us either—it demands more than we humans can deliver.
Socrates: Do you see now, Ed, how we have questioned the voices of speech, of analysis, of distinction—and yet knowledge still stands in the shadows?
Ed: We have shown paths—but not a foundation. None of the proposals has managed to capture the difference between mere opinion and true knowledge.
Socrates (with quiet severity): Then you repeat—without knowing it—what we learned with Theaetetus: that one can examine everything—and still end up empty-handed.
Ed (thoughtfully): I sought a secure definition—and found only uncertainty. Perhaps my detour was a misdirection?
Socrates: Or the beginning of philosophy. For only when one realizes that no part stands for the whole, and no concept binds what truly is, does one begin to seek the true path.
Ed: Then my critique of “justified true belief“ was not the downfall of knowledge—but a step toward a higher search?
Socrates (nodding slowly): A useful error. You showed that the circle closes where one thinks he walks a straight path—but you have not yet seen where the gaze must turn for truth itself to appear.
Ed (quietly): I tried to grasp it—and knowledge slipped through my fingers like water.
Socrates (gently): So it goes for all who mistake becoming for being. As long as you asked, What is knowledge?—and thought it a tool to hold in your hands—you remained trapped in error. But now, being empty, you may begin to see.
Ed: Then my refutation was not an end—but a gate?
Socrates: Perhaps the right gate. For, as I once said: “The confession of not knowing is the first step toward philosophy.”
Ed: And what is the second?
Socrates (gazing toward the sky of Elysium): The turning. Not toward definitions—but toward what truly is. Not toward what merely seems—but toward what always is. Are you ready?
Ed (softly): I am ready, Socrates.

[...]

This is a excerpt. The full dialogue is available here:
• https://philpapers.org/rec/SCHGQF
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391526622_GETTIER

This dialogue serves as a conceptual prelude to my essay Justified True Crisis, which builds on its ontological insights to propose a dualistic and dynamic definition of knowledge.

I’d be happy to hear your thoughts or discuss further.

Best regards