Abstract This article replies to the critical note by Trabattoni («Elenchos», xxxiii (2012) pp. 69-107). The author defends his interpretation of Plato's Theaetetus against Trabattoni's objections, arguing that the maieutic and peirastic character of the dialogue explains its negative or aporetic conclusion. For the failure of all the attempts to define knowledge in the dialogue doesn't mean that, according to Plato, knowledge is not possible for men or that it can be identified with doxa; on the contrary, Plato clearly states that the philosopher, i.e. the dialectician, is absolutely able to attain the perfect knowledge of the forms. The subsequent failures in the Theaetetus, particularly the last two, depend on the admission of an "additive model'' according to which knowledge is "doxa plus something'', an epistemological attitude that is explicitly rejected in the Meno.
Completely real? A critical note on the claims by Colbeck and Renner
