In the Theaetetus, one of the theories of knowledge examined by Socrates and Theaetetus is that all knowledge comes from perception. At the same time, they are examining another theory: that everything that exists is never still, immutable, but is constantly changing (becoming).
But they do not seem to make any distinction between the two theories. As I could understand, they lump them together, treating the two as the same hypothesis, only expressed in different ways. Or, perhaps, as parts of a single unified theory, which Socrates attributes to Protagoras.
To me, however, they look like very different theories, each one dealing with a different problem. I'm wondering what is the connection between them. A possible solution that occurred to me is: since everything can be perceived differently by different people – or even by the same the person at different times – nothing is absolute. Everything depends on the person perceiving it. But not in the relativistic sense that there is no truth. Let's take one of the examples given by Socrates. When a healthy man drinks wine, the wine tastes sweet to him, but when he is ill, it tastes bitter. It's not only the case that he perceives the taste of the wine differently, but the wine itself becomes different at the moment of perception. Is this the correct interpretation?