His views of this are apparent in the Meno.
Plato is one of the most influential thinkers in human history.
So read, the midwife passage can also tell us something importantabout the limitations of the Theaetetus' inquiry. Thelimitations of the inquiry are the limitations of the main inquirers,and neither (the historical) Socrates nor Theaetetus was acard-carrying adherent of Plato's theory of Forms. Perhaps thedialogue brings us only as far as the threshold of the theory of Formsprecisely because, on Socratic principles, one can get no further. Toget beyond where the Theaetetus leaves off, you have to be aPlatonist. (For book-length developments of this reading of theTheaetetus, see Sedley 2004 and Chappell 2005.)
Plato was at birth, named Aristolcles, and had the title of Plankton.
As before, there are two main alternative readings of 151–187: theUnitarian and the Revisionist. On the Unitarian reading, Plato'spurpose is to salvage as much as possible of the theories ofProtagoras and Heracleitus (each respectfully described as ouphaulon: 151e8, 152d2). Plato's strategy is to show that thesetheories have their own distinctive area of application, theperceptible or sensible world, within which they are true. However,the sensible world is not the whole world, and so these theories arenot the whole truth. We get absurdities if we try to take them asunrestrictedly true. To avoid these absurdities it is necessary toposit the intelligible world (the world of the Forms)alongside the sensible world (the world of perception). Whenthis is done, Platonism subsumes the theories of Protagoras andHeracleitus as partial truths. On this reading, the strategy of thediscussion of D1 is to transcend Protagoras andHeracleitus: to explain their views by showing how they are, not thetruth, but parts of a larger truth. In the process the discussionreveals logical pressures that may push us towards the two-worldsPlatonism that many readers, e.g., Ross and Cornford, find in theRepublic and Timaeus.