In classical rhetoric, the Greek term doxa refers to the domain of
opinion, belief, or probable knowledge—in contrast to episteme, the domain of
certainty or true knowledge. To achieve any sort of reality, we need a
clear distinction
between doxa and episteme.
It is helpful to recall that passage in The Republic where Socrates asks Glaucon to image a line divided into two segments,
and each segment further divided into two. The lower segment is the doxa, comprised of eikasia (imagination) and pistis
(belief), and corresponds to the interior of the cave, i.e. that which lies further from true knowledge. The doxa is a type
of knowledge through which we can access the sensible world. The upper segment of the line is episteme, comprised of
dianoia (discursive knowledge) and noesis (intelligence), and corresponds to the exterior of the cave, which provides
access to the intelligible world and is positioned closer to the sun, i.e. closer to the idea of “good” and knowledge.
In Plato, the development of human mind from ignorance to knowledge in its own
way lies onto two main areas, namely the realm of doxa and the realm of
episteme. Where everything flows incessantly, which is in material existence and
absence, is not necessarily real, is not necessarily absence either, is sensual, is
dependent on existence and decay, is delusive are the objects of the material world
and the knowledge of the material world is doxa. The subject matter of knowledge
or science is, on the other hand, is the episteme which is above senses, is not
material and outside the realm of existence and absence, is real and is the
knowledge of ideas. Doxa and Episteme also contain two more levels. Thus, in the
process from ignorance to knowledge four mind settings or types of cognition
such as eikasia, pistis, dianoia and noesis appear.
You should keep in mind key terms such as Ignorance (a gnosis), Knowledge (episteme), Opinion (doxa), Conjecture or
Picture Thinking (eikasia), Belief (pistis), Understanding (dianoia), Intellection
(noesis).
According to Plato, an episteme has two fundamental characteristics: being true and being about what exists. Otherwise, it is impossible to know something that does not exist. The knower must know something, and what he knows must be something that exists. From this perspective, it can be said that what absolutely exists is absolutely knowable, whereas what does not exist at all is absolutely unknowable.
It seems that Plato placed a chasm, rather than a separation, between being (to on) and nothingness (me on). However, when things exist and do not exist at the same time, they will be located between these two chasms. In this case, three possible objects emerge that can be the subject of knowledge. The first of these objects is existence, the second is non-existence, and the third is the things between being and non-existence, which are both existent and non-existent. Each of these objects determines a different mode of cognition: non-existence (ignorance; a gnosis); existence (knowledge; episteme); and the one between being and non-existence (opinion; doxa).
Consequently, according to Plato, the subject of knowledge is not the particular things that are the subject of our ordinary judgments about the world around us, the sensuous, material, and in creation and destruction—in other words, the objects of "opinion"—but the objects of "knowledge" whose subject matter possesses absolute and immutable properties.
This dilemma posed by Plato has become one of the most important problems that thinkers have worked on and developed numerous solutions to, thus influencing the entire history of philosophy.
