Plato makes a distinction between knowledge and opinion by arguing that knowledge can only be obtained through the intelligible realm and the practice of logical reasoning (i.e. mathematical reasoning and the dialectic) while opinions are formed in the worlds of belief and illusions (worlds situated in Doxa). Thus only those who have the capacity to use reason (charioteer) control their appetite (Epithumetikon/black horse) and spirit (Thumos/white horse) in their tripartite sol to pursue the truth in the World of Forms can have true knowledge. Essentially, truth-lovers know whilst sight-lovers opine – I largely do agree with this distinction as I believe to a large extent that opinion is not knowledge.
Firstly, opinion is the power of “believing to the mind” – it is not the “power of knowing to the mind”. When one is forming opinions, they are not stating the truth nor are they acknowledging the Perfect Form (i.e. the ‘thing in itself’), but rather seeing the manifestation of the intelligible forms in the visible realm. Opinions are subjective thoughts riddles with personal beliefs and biases, thus not objective hard facts (Plato asserts that knowledge is objective facts). Opinions are not forms in the World of Forms so it cannot be considered the same as knowledge. There is a large distinction between “I know” and “I believe” as whilst in Plato’s society, the distinction is between what a truth-lover and sight-lover says, in contemporary society, the distinction is: “I know” is objective and “I believe” is subjective. “I believe” is not pure, rational knowledge and cannot be considered a such – we don’t equate beliefs to facts because beliefs are not always true. Conversely, perfect knowledge is always true: by transcending Doxa (lower-level thinking) into Episteme (higher-level thinking), the soul attains rational thought and learns to understand the pure, eternal and true forms.
Moreover, the basis for opinions and knowledge don’t just differ due to the subjectivity of beliefs and objectivity of facts, but the way that one arrives at their claims. Knowledge is attained through mathematical reasoning and dialectic – the practice of discussing the true forms – while beliefs arise from looking at art or observing shadows. In contemporary society, opinions do not necessarily have to be logically substantiated – they can be ignorant like the beliefs of white supremacy – while knowledge has to be factually and empirically substantiated, like the fact that the Earth is spherical, not flat. Essentially, the distinction between opinion and knowledge boils down to the Divided Line –Plato asserts that true knowledge arises from the practice of mathematical reasoning and dialectic as these activities are logical, honing the philosopher’s reasoning skills and enabling them to transcend into the Perfect Form – and Plato’s analogy of the Cave, and how that analogy is the metaphor for the soul’s ascension to the Sun/Good. The prisoners who could only see the shadows cast by the fires only held opinions as they did not fully grasp true reality and were situated in the World of Illusions – they lived in blissful ignorance. In contrast, the prisoner who broke free and saw the fire (World of Beliefs), then the reflection of the sun in water (World of Ideas) and then finally the sun (Perfect Form) attained true knowledge as he finally got a grasp of the reality of the World. Similarly, the ascension of the soul from the cave to the sun (along the divided line; from visible to intelligible) showcases the fact that only those who reach the Perfect Form (the ‘Good’) have true knowledge. People who use reason to gauge the truth have knowledge, whilst those who don’t have opinions, and I do agree with this statement.
Consistently, it has been shown that opinion is not the truth while knowledge is – exemplifying the striking difference between the two. However, it is important to note the argument against the idea that knowledge and opinion are not the same. It could be contested that knowledge is the ‘knowing of objective facts’ while opinion is the ‘knowing of subjective experiences’ – both have an overlap in terms of the faculty used to store and produce knowledge and opinion: the brain/mind. Both opinion and knowledge are informed by our past, be it our past creates biases, inspiring opinion or our past creates empirical evidence/provides us with education, enabling knowledge. Although this may be true, the entire tenet (not the events necessitating/preempting) of knowledge and opinion are different. Plato explores this in a manner I find very convincing as knowledge of the true forms is not the same as an opinion – knowing the pure, eternal Perfect Form of beauty is not the same as asserting that a flower is ‘beautiful’. When a toddler says that they are scared of the dark, they are opining their insecurities, but not possessing knowledge of fear itself.
In conclusion, I agree that opinion is not knowledge to a large extent as I have defined knowledge as “power of knowing to the mind” and opinion as “power of believing to the mind” – and idea supported by Plato’s analogy of truth-lovers (people who pursue their love of wisdom and the truth by accessing the intelligible realm) versus sight-lovers.