In Plato’s Meno, Socrates purposefully uses ignorance and irony to insufficiently define excellence for Meno. Initially, Meno argues a particular definition, which is a universally inconsistent proof, is sufficient to define excellence. However, Socrates asserts that the definition of excellence must be consistent and applicable to all individuals, by comparing individuals in a society to bees in a colony. Socrates demonstrates the failure of a particular proof to define all constituents of a group. In order to exemplify the errors of inconsistent and universally inapplicable definition, Socrates uses a universally inconsistent proof to erroneously assert a figure is not a shape. Socrates purposefully applies an inconsistent proof to define all figures because Meno, as a student, must be critical of a teacher’s argument. In order to stimulate Meno’s development, Socrates erroneously uses a consistent proof to determine excellence is different than knowledge. Unable to define excellence, Socrates deliberately attributes excellence to the divine. Plato employs Socratic irony to inspire a new definition of excellence and determines the errors in particular proofs. In order to emphasize contradictions and stress the areas necessary for logical review, Socratic ignorance fails to determine a universal conclusion from a consistent proof. Ultimately, Meno’s review of Socrates’ argument must determine that both knowledge and excellence are defined by a consistent proof. As a result, both excellence and knowledge are either divine awards or attainable by humans.
Socrates argues the definition of excellence must be consistent for all individuals in a group. According to Meno, excellence is based “on our walk of life and our age” (Meno, pg...
... middle of paper ...
...e process, Socrates illustrated the fallacy in particular proofs. Socrates deliberately determines excellence is unlike knowledge. This failure furthers Socrates’ argument that a consistent proof must be used correctly. Socrates methods are intended to force Meno’s review of the argument and develop a personal definition of excellence. Meno must determine that a consistent argument develops the same conclusion with every application. As a result, the definition of knowledge will determine that excellence is teachable and attainable. Socratic methods stimulate the development of personal resolutions. Through review, Meno, as the student, must conclude that excellence is attainable because knowledge is attainable. The divinity of the excellence is not sufficient to define excellence in relation to humans. Therefore, excellence must be a genuine characteristic.
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.
The Theaetetus is composed of three main parts, each part being allotted to a different definition of what constitutes as knowledge. While the Theaetetus is focused primarily on how to define knowledge, the arguments faced by Socrates and Theaetetus greatly resemble arguments made by different later theories of knowledge and justification. I will argue in this essay that due to the failure faced by Socrates and Theaetetus in their attempt at defining knowledge, the conclusion that would be best fit for their analysis would be that of skepticism. In doing this I will review the three main theses, the arguments within their exploration that resemble more modern theories of knowledge and justification, and how the reason for the failure of the theories presented in the Theaetetus are strikingly similar to those that cause later theories of epistemology to fail.
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.
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,
In “Apology” by Plato, Socrates stated, “… there are plenty of persons, as soon as enough discover, who think that they know anything, but really know little or nothing” (Plato 32). In other words, humans are imperfect and this explains the limited nature of human knowing. Even when we consider things for a while and in our best operation, we can still make mistakes because we are imperfect. At the same time, the student must know his/her purpose for doing something. “God orders me to fulfill the philosopher’s mission of searching into myself and other men….” (Plato 35), stated Socrates. He knows that his job was to teach the young men to follow his footsteps and live a good and virtuous life. Just like Socrates, our modern education system should be concerned with making sure that students are learning what is truly important. There will be different levels of education as one goes through his or her life cycle. The modern model represents the way of growing through education and continues to change. If one is motivated, he or she will be successful in his or her life and become a better educated person. In the “Apology,” Socrates visited the politicians, poets and artisans to see which group was wiser than him. He realized that all three groups lacked knowledge in some type of way. Socrates stated that the politician “knows nothing, and thinks that he knows” (Plato 31). Both the
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.
In the Meno, Plato addresses the question of virtue, what it is, how to obtain and if virtue can be taught. Meno came to conclusion after a long discussion with Socrates that it is impossible to know what virtue is. The Meno’x paradox states, “if one knows what virtue is, he does not need to search for it. However, if one does not know what virtue is, how can he search for it? He may not know he has it even when he gets it.” Seeing how hopeless Meno is, Socrates propose the theory of recollection as a way to obtain virtue. This paper will argue against this theory.
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.
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
"A shape is that which limits a solid; in a word, a shape is the limit of a solid."
One of Socrates’ favorite students was Plato. Cross agrees, saying, “Plato (437-347) was Socrates’ prized student.” The thing Plato did was magnificent, he was always questioning Socrates in his teaching because he knew that’s what was expected of him. If we fast forward to modern day teachers, or professors, they are always assumed to be correct and have the highest level of knowledge and wisdom (all the while teaching about Socrates.) This is completely obscene because their teaching method is to not have students question their ideas, but that their ideas are solid, correct, and unwavering. Socrates would highly disagree with this idea. The amazing philosopher so many people refer to, Plato and Socrates both are advocates of students questioning what they learn so they do not become daft robots. Yet in modern day society, many are taught to accept what their professors and teachers say as the cold hard truth that shan’t be
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.”