12/2: Theaetetus 201c to the end (discussion opener)

Socrates critiques the definition of knowledge as “true belief with an account” (logos). He raises issues about what constitutes a satisfactory account, including concerns of circularity and the challenge of defining logos itself. Do you think Socrates’ critique undermines the idea that justification can elevate true belief to knowledge, or does it simply highlight the complexity of articulating justification? Furthermore, given the aporetic conclusion of the dialogue, how should we interpret the role of Socrates’ elenctic method in the pursuit of knowledge: does it suggest that knowledge itself might be unattainable, or that its nature is fundamentally relational rather than definitional?