In The Theatetus Plato uses and epistemology to explore the question of what knowledge is and in The Sophist he focuses on the quest how can something be if it is nothing? In The Theatetus Socrates and Theatetus have a long conversation about knowledge and whether it is any different from wisdom. Socrates asks, “Is it not true that learnings about something means becoming wiser in that matter?”# Socrates then gets Theatetus to agree that knowledge and wisdom is the same thing. I do knot think that they are the same thing. This story becomes to abstract for my liking. I live in a world of more absolutes as opposed to the opposite in which is relativism. There is a wrong a right the way I see things. Someone could have knowledge of what will lead you to getting a DUI but still drink and drive. A wise man who may have received a DUI before will not risk the chance. Both men had the knowledge but one only has wisdom. This conversation hits on the famous statement of Protagoras- “man is the measure of all things- alike of the being things that are and of not-being of things that are not”#. Socrates uses this quote to build up a straw-man argument that he ultimately gets Theatetus to agree that one-man perception is knowledge and that perception is infallible just as knowledge is. This goes on back and forth between Socrates and Theatetus, with Socrates getting Theatetus to agree on things and then contradicting what he believes. Socrates gets Theatetus to agree that all things are constantly changing and one’s perception of things is different from others but that does not make it infallible. Dr. Hale said that the main point was to be humbled about what you do not know. I agree with this, being such an absolutist that I am, I may not see something that could be different from what I believe but my arrogance of thinking of things in purely black and white