In the sequncia of the dialogue, Teeteto surpreso with Scrates reveals, therefore it considered that its premise (proposal) was very well formed, until refuted it to Scrates and showed as the knowledge is not sensation. After that of the dialogue, Scrates starts to demonstrate as the argument of Teeteto could lead to a more satisfactory reply, that could not be refuted. Scrates still points with respect to the necessity to know the vocbulos when accepting well or to deny a thesis, therefore due to attention to these we could create an erroneous concept. Scrates continues the dialogue inquiring the Teeteto if a person would be possible not to know on what she knows. by itself discourses for a long time on the dialectic and its difference of a commentary.
After that, it discourses on the difference between wisdom and opinion, being this last passvel of deceits, what it refutes the theory of Protgoras. In a new change of subject, it is initiated quarrel regarding the freedom that enjoys philosopher, the slave and the man of the choir. comments as the philosophy can bring freedom its admirers, but the price for this freedom is the caoadas ones, therefore the philosophers pass for lunatics and imbeciles. to the being questioned on the elimination of males of the ignorance, Scrates affirms to be impossible to eliminate the ignorance, therefore the forces if always divide in two (, pious and well and badly mpio, etc.), and therefore the ignorance would not be eliminated, in order to keep steady the wisdom. still adds, in the continuity, its critical to the sofistas, for these to defend that they possess the absolute wisdom, but being this individual wisdom (the man is the measure of all the things, according to Protgoras). Scrates starts to discourse on the theory of the movement, affirming to have two forms of movement (Alteration and translation).