In Plato’s Meno, Socrates uses ignorance to prove excellence cannot be taught or even attained by human actions. The process involves Socrates purposefully contradicting himself to entice Meno’s focus. Through Socrates, Plato argues particular criteria cannot determine excellence within a collective. Instead, Socrates asserts excellence must be a universal quality and applicable to all individuals, by comparing the human collective to a bee colony. Socrates purposefully fails to use a universally applicable proof for shapes to define a square. All shapHis ignorance is used to inspire Meno’s review of the argument and develop a correct definition for excellence. For Meno’s benefit, Socrates contradicts his methods of deduction and proves excellence is divine. Plato employs Socratic irony to inspire a resolution to a problem by facilitating individual thought and input. As a result, Socrates’ ignorance is based on contradiction because contradiction entices review and the development of a correct resolution. Ultimately, Socrates’ methods entice Meno to assert that both knowledge and excellence are divine gifts or that both are attainable by humans.
Socrates argues excellence must be applicable to the collective because individual excellence is not universal. According to Meno, excellence is based “on our walk of life and our age” (Meno, pg 100, ln 71e-72a). Meno’s resolution that distinct excellences define different individuals reflects a folly in his logic because his inquiry was into a single definition of excellence. Meno’s failure to answer his own question correctly inspires Socrates to guide Meno by ignorance and inquiry to resolve the definition of excellence. Socrates states that “bees [are] all no different from one anot...
... middle of paper ...
...ge is teachable. Socrate purposefully builds of a contradiction to force Meno’s input about excellence. Socrates argues a universal definition is needed to evaluate all constituents of a group. However, Socrates deliberately uses an incorrect proof to illustrate the hazards of an inconsistent and universally false argument. Like the attainability of knowledge, Meno should have argued against Socrates proof that excellence is attainable through proper investigation and pursuit. However, Meno agrees with Socrates that determined excellence is not similar to knowledge. Yet, the very process of equating excellence with knowledge for the purpose of evaluation signifies the values are similar. One conclusion must remain consistent for both excellence and knowledge. Therefore, Meno should have asserted both excellence and knowledge are divine “dispensation” or teachable.
Right after Socrates comments how they can both look for virtue, Meno gives him these questions: “How will you look for it, Socrates, when you do not know at all what it is? How will you aim to search for something you do not know at all? If you should meet with it, how will you know that this is the thing you did not know (80d)?” This is Meno’s paradox which explains the discovery of knowledge is impossible and if you do not know what you are learning, and that you cannot discover it either. Meno states in his first premise that you either know what knowledge is or you don’t, and whether you do know it or not, you cannot discover what that piece of knowledge is. This,
In what is noted as one of Plato first accounts, we become acquainted with a very intriguing man known as Socrates; a man, whose ambition to seek knowledge, inevitably leaves a significant impact on humanity. Most of all, it is methodologies of attaining this knowledge that makes him so mesmerizing. This methodology is referred to as Socratic irony, in literature. In any case, I will introduce the argument that Plato's Euthyphro is extremely indicative of this type of methodology, for the reason being that: Socrates's portrays a sense of intellectual humility.
Socrates put one’s quest for wisdom and the instruction of others above everything else in life. A simple man both in the way he talked and the wealth he owned, he believed that simplicity in whatever one did was the best way of acquiring knowledge and passing it unto others. He is famous for saying that “the unexplained life is not worth living.” He endeavored therefore to break down the arguments of those who talked with a flowery language and boasted of being experts in given subjects (Rhees 30). His aim was to show that the person making a claim on wisdom and knowledge was in fact a confused one whose clarity about a given subject was far from what they claimed. Socrates, in all his simplicity never advanced any theories of his own but rather aimed at bringing out the worst in his interlocutors.
The critical argument, known as Meno's Paradox, as presented in Plato's “Meno”, questions the very basis of Socrates method of arriving at knowledge of unknown things through inquiry. If Socrates truly wants to gain knowledge of what no one else knows, then the content of that “unknown” thing will produce absolutely nothing. The paradox bases itself in stating that humans can never learn anything that they don't already obtain knowledge of. As identified by Meno, the paradox is this: "And how are you going to inquire about it, Socrates, when you do not at all know what it is? For what sort of thing, from among the ones you do not know, will you take as the object of your inquiry? And even if you do happen to bump right into it, how are you going to know that It is the thing you did not know?” By saying this, Meno proposes that since Socrates does not really know what virtue is, he cannot find it because he would not recognize it even if he did. Each time Meno offers an explanation of the term, Socrates rejects them immediately because they are, in his eyes, inadequate. Socrates delivers an excellent theory, along with an example, to criticize this paradox and provide for the opportunity of humans achieving knowledge.
With the use of Socrates’ elenchus , Meno finds himself in aporia , and leads him to introduce us to, what is titled, the paradox of knowledge. It is, as he states:
The paradox arises due to a number of assumptions concerning knowledge, inquiry and definition made by both Socrates and Meno. The assumptions of Socrates are:
Plato believes the conversation to search for what virtue really is should continue despite achieving no success in their first efforts to form a satisfactory definition. Meno becomes very aggravated with Plato and proposes a valid argument to him. Meno exclaims,
lthough today's society includes much technology and new things are supposedly being discovered every day, many age old questions still remain unanswered; questions such as: "Can virtue be taught?" This question is examined in detail throughout Plato's Meno, and although the play leaves the question as to what virtue is unanswered, Socrates attempts an answer to Meno's question. Although he is not particularly keen on answering whether virtue can be taught without first having a complete understanding of what virtue is, he attempts to please Meno by solving this in the way that geometers conduct their investigations, through a hypothesis. Socrates states that if indeed virtue can be taught then one thing will happen, and if it cannot a different thing will happen. In the end of the play, the conclusion is reached that virtue is a gift from the gods. Now the question must be asked: how was this conclusion reached in relationship to Socrates' previous hypothesis?
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
Meno is very surprised at Socrates’s answer, therefore he decides to explain the definition to Socrates. On his first attempt, Meno gives a list of all the virtues that men and women have. Socrates points out that it is just a list of various virtue but it does not define what virtue is. He makes reference of Meno’s information is like a swarm of bees. There may be different types of bee but we do not know the essence that makes them a bee. On Meno’s second attempt, he defines virtue as the power to rule over people. Socrates asks Meno to add “justly” in the phrase “to rule over people.” He then asks Meno if justice is virtue or a virtue. The example here is that roundness is a shape but not shape itself. There are many other shapes. Same concept applies to virtue. Justice is a virtue but there are many other virtues. Meno does not give up, he attempts to explain the third time. This time, he says that virtue is to desire beautiful things and power to have them. Those beautiful things are wealth, health and fame. Once again, Meno’s answer is just a composite of many things put together. It does not give the definition. Meno asks Socrates to answer
In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men.” This seems to be his greatest mistake, claiming to be greater than even the jury.
Socrates says that it is also impossible for everyone to know that is right for the youth. He goes on to give an example of a horse. Socrates explains that only one person would be able to train horses correctly, a horse trainer. A horse trainer has been instructed in how to raise horses. A person walking on the road would not be able to train horses properly, because the would have no previous knowledge or experience ...
Peter Geach’s essay on the Socratic fallacy poses a large problem for the Socratic method of obtaining answers to the What-is-F? question. He claims that Socrates makes an error when he refuses to accept examples as knowledge, primarily citing the Euthyphro as the source. In my last essay, I examined whether or not Socrates commits the Socratic fallacy in two of the early dialogues, namely, the Euthyphro and the Laches. So, I shall begin by giving a brief recapitulation of my previous essay as well as outlining Geach’s Socratic fallacy. Additionally, I will bring up an objection that Beversluis raises to my view. Then I shall explain the importance of the fallacy and the theory of the fallacy within the Socratic dialogues as it relates to
There was no other Greek philosopher more adamant about the quest for wisdom than Socrates. His desire for knowledge led him through many life experiences and caused his eventual death. Socrates’ view of wisdom is best expressed in Plato’s literary work Apology which follows Socrates as he is charged with corrupting the youth and not believing the gods of Athens. In the story, Plato documents how Socrates visited the oracle of Delphi and was proclaimed the wishes of all the people in Athens. Socrates felt confused; he thought there were more people wiser than he was. He took this information and set out on his quest to find wisdom. Socrates interviews, politicians, poets and craftsman. When he questioned politicians he found people who thought they knew things, but they really knew nothing. When he questioned poets he found people with amazing intellect and inspirations, but not wisdom. Finally, when he interviewed craftsmen he found people who truly had wisdom in their crafts, but n...
Socrates’ argument was unique in that he tried to convince the jury he was just an average man and not to be feared, but in actuality demonstrated how clever and tenacious he was. He begins with an anecdote of his visit to the Oracle of Delphi, which told him that there was no man smarter than he. He, being as humble as he is, could not take the Oracle’s answer for granted and went about questioning Athenians he felt surpassed his intelligence. However, in questioning politicians, poets, and artisans, he found that they claimed to know of matters they did not know about. Socrates considered this to be a serious flaw, and, as Bill S. Preston, Esq. put it: that “true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing.”