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.
Meno is the first dialogue that does not specify the setting where it takes place. It starts out with Meno’s question, “is virtue something acquired by teaching?” After a few discussions,
…show more content…
In order to find something, we must already know it, if not, how would we start to search for it from the first place? If we do not what Santa Claus looks like, we would never be able to event start thinking of looking for Santa. Socrates does agree with Meno’s paradox. However, with the theory of recollection, he is able to avoid the paradox entirely. Assuming that the soul is immortal, it has died and reborn over many generations. It has seen many things including all the forms and the knowledge of them all. We cannot search for what we do not know but we can search for what we have forgotten. Socrates’s theory of recollection has two problems. The first one is that the theory repeats itself without giving a conclusion. We do not know what virtue is, however, we can recollect it because our souls have knowledge about it. The question is when our souls actually learned about virtue. By applying the theory of recollection, our souls learned it from the previous life. As we keep asking the question, the answer is always from the previous life. The argument is circular. We would never figure out when is the actual time that we have the knowledge of virtue. The second problem is Socrates’ answer does not give the definition of virtue nor does it answer Meno’s paradox. All Socrates is saying is that we may be able to recollect the lost knowledge. He does not mention how we can do
In Plato’s Meno, Socrates claims that all learning is actually recollection (80d – 86c). What prompts Socrates to make this claim, and what does he mean by it?
Socrates was wise men, who question everything, he was found to be the wise man in Athens by the oracle. Although he was consider of being the wises man alive in those days, Socrates never consider himself wise, therefore he question everything in order to learned more. Socrates lived a poor life, he used to go to the markets and preach in Athens he never harm anyone, or disobey any of the laws in Athens, yet he was found guilty of all charges and sentence to die.
In this paper, I will investigate the basic characteristics and properties of Plato’s “recollection” in Meno. In my opinion, Plato uses “recollection” to refute this argument, “whether people know or do not know, discovering is unnecessary.” He believes there is a state between “do not know” and “know”, he calls it “forget”. Therefore, when people are learning or discovering, they are just recollecting things they already forget.
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:
The 'doctrine of recollection' states that all true knowledge exists implicitly within us, and can be brought to consciousness - made explicit - by recollection. Using the Platonic concepts of 'Forms', 'particulars', 'knowledge' and 'true opinion', this essay explains what can or cannot be recollected, why all knowledge is based on recollection, and why the doctrine does not prove the soul to be immortal.
During this essay, the trail of Socrates found in the Apology of Plato will be reviewed. What will be looked at during this review is how well Socrates rebuts the charges made against him. We will also talk about if Socrates made the right decision to not escape prison with Crito. Socrates was a very intelligent man; this is why this review is so critical. In Plato’s Apology, it seems that overall Socrates did an effective job using the 3 acts of the mind.
In the Laches and the Phaedo, courage and virtue are discussed in depth. Also, arguments for the possibility of the existence of the immorality of the soul are given in the Phaedo. In the Laches, Socrates and two generals, Nicias and Laches, wrestle with how exactly to define courage. After discussing and working their way through two definitions of courage, Nicias proposes a third definition of courage. However, this definition of courage that he proposes is actually the definition of virtue. When the dialogue comes to an end, no definition of courage has been reached.
Socrates’ Doctrine of Recollection is invalid because of the flawed procedure that was employed to prove it, its inability to apply to all types of knowledge, and the weakness of the premises that it is based on.
Before addressing the fundamental issues of the Theory of Recollection, it is worth noting that Socrates never addresses the second half of Meno’s Paradox- assuming one has found what it is they are looking for, how is one to know they have found it if they do not know what they are looking for? There seems to lack a method for verifying one’s answer and if you cannot confirm that what you have found is in fact what you were looking for then inquiry seems to be never-ending. Although this is a discussion for another time, it does highlight an issue, which Socrates faces in the first part of the paradox, the part he addresses, which is the problem of circularity. Ironically, Socrates’ Theory of Recollection, which is used to overcome Meno’s Paradox, is subject to the criticism of being paradoxical. The claim that the soul is immortal and all knowing is necessary for his Theory of Recollection to be true, thus it is vital that Socrates be able prove the immortality of the soul. The issue of circularity arises when Socrates attempts to prove the immortality through the use of the slave boy. According to Socrates, if the slave boy can recall knowledge about geometry, a subject which he appears to know nothing about, then he has successfully proven the existence of an immortal and all knowing soul. Socrates seems to suggest that the knowledge the slave boy is able to recall is evidence of the immortality and all knowing nature of the soul, while also stating that the immortality and all knowing nature of the soul is the reason why learning is just recollection (Fraser). Therefore, his ability to recollect past information is based on the existence of the all knowing and immortal soul and the existence of this soul is based in the slav...
hilosophers have contemplated over the subject of immortality. They question if the soul, particularly, is immortal. Although Plato writes the Meno, it is supposed to be a copy of what Socrates personally encountered and “taught” in his lifetime. Even though the Meno is originally about the search for the meaning of virtue, one perspective on the immortality of the soul is introduced to us by Socrates in that play. Therefore, what Socrates thought about the immortality of the soul in the Meno is the following: “If the truth about reality is always in our soul, the soul would be immortal so that you should always confidently try to seek out and recollect what you do not know at present” (Plato, 86b) In the beginning, Meno challenges Socrates
Socrates' theory of recollection argues that all learning is recollection of prior knowledge acquired in a previous existence that we have simply forgotten. The theory maintains that the soul exists before birth and since our experiences began with our birth, we had to have this awareness before birth. Socrates states that since we can be reminded of one thing by another thing, we must have previous knowledge of the form and its qualities and since we begin to see and hear only at birth, our knowledge preexists that birth. Socrates is in essence arguing that the soul is immortal and lives on after the death of the body.
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.
Throughout the dialogue of “Meno”, Socrates inquires what virtue is and whether virtue is innate, acquired through learning, or received as a gift from the gods (Jowett, 1949). After some discussion with Meno, Socrates first proposes the theory that virtue is innate. Subsequently the knowledge of innate virtue is of a priori knowledge, which is in turn contingent on a priori justification (Russell, 2011).
In this paper, I will investigate the logical progress of Socrates’s proof that “virtue is knowledge”. The reason why Socrates shows Meno how to prove “virtue is knowledge”, is because it can answer Meno’s question “can virtue be taught”, if virtue is knowledge, thus it can be taught. In brief, first Socrates proves someone who has virtue, knows what is good, then he proves someone who knows what is good, has virtue. Therefore, virtue is knowledge. I divide this whole process into seven parts, and I will explain them step by step.
When Socrates was brought to trial for the corruption of the city’s youth he knew he had done nothing wrong. He had lived his life as it should be lead, and did what he ne...