196
SOC. Have we not, then, come back again to the beginning of our talk? For the man who is affected in this way imagines that one thing which he knows is another thing which he knows. This we said was impossible, and by this very argument we were forcing false opinion out of existence, that the same man might not be forced to know and not know the same things at the same time.
196
THEAET. Very true.
196
SOC. Then we must show that forming false opinion is something or other different from the interchange of thought and perception. For if it were that, we should never be deceived in abstract thoughts. But as the case now stands, either there is no false opinion or it is possible for a man not to know that which he knows. Which alternative will you choose?
196
THEAET. There is no possible choice, Socrates.
196
SOC. And yet the argument is not likely to admit both. But still, since we must not shrink from any risk, what if we should try to do a shameless deed?
196
THEAET. What is it?
196
SOC. To undertake to tell what it really is to know.
196
THEAET. And why is that shameless?
196
SOC. You seem not to remember that our whole talk from the beginning has been a search for knowledge, because we did not know what it is.
196
THEAET. Oh yes, I remember.
196
SOC. Then is it not shameless to proclaim what it is to know, when we are ignorant of knowledge? But really, Theaetetus, our talk has been badly tainted with unclearness all along; for we have said over and over again we know and we do not know and we have knowledge and we have no knowledge, as if we could understand each other, while we were still ignorant of knowledge; and at this very moment, if you please, we have again used the terms be ignorant and understand, as though we had any right to use them if we are deprived of knowledge.
196
THEAET. But how will you converse, Socrates, if you refrain from these words?