In dialogues like Cratylus and Theatatus, it seems to me that Plato paints a very skeptical picture of our capacity to know or articulate knowledge. In Cratylus he doubts the possibility of language to ever be flawless, to ever be perfectly isomorphic to its referents, and to ever be rid of conventionalism. In Theatatus he fails to arrive at a definition of knowledge, rejecting knowledge as being true opinion or even being true opinion with an account.
Given these, I am left wondering how Plato justifies our knowledge of the forms. If he can't come up with a general definition for knowledge how does he know we actually have knowledge in the instance of the forms? And does he believe our knowledge of the forms to be direct, bypassing any linguistic or symbolic medium?
I have so far been fascinated by Plato's insight and am keen to develop an understanding of him, so any insight would be appreciated.