Meno's Paradox It is thought that Meno's paradox is of critical importance both within Plato's thought and within the whole history of ideas. It's major importance is that for the first time on record, the possibility of achieving knowledge from the mind's own resources rather than from experience is articulated, demonstrated and seen as raising important philosophical questions. Meno's paradox states: `Why on what lines will you look, Socrates, for a thing of whose nature you know nothing at all? Pray, what sort of a thing, amongst those things that you know will you treat us to as the object of your search? Or even supposing, at the best that you it upon it, how will you know it is the thing you did not know?' 80D 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: If we do not know what F is, we do not know anything about F. If we cannot define F, we do not know what F is. The assumptions of Meno are: If we do not know anything about F, we cannot distinguish F from other things we do not know If we cannot distinguish F from other things we do not know, we cannot inquire about F. Hence if we do not know what F is we cannot inquire about F. If we take these assumptions and put them together we find ourselves with the paradox. We start with F, which we want to inquire about. According to Meno, if we want to inquire about F, we need to know what F is. Socrates says though, that in order to know what F is, we must be able to define it, and if we cannot define it, we wil... ... middle of paper ... ...ox could be proved wrong then he has demonstrated his point very well. This would mean accepting the `minimal sense' of the recollection theory - as Vlastos puts is, that demonstrative knowledge is independent of sense-experience, thus establishing that there can be non-empirical knowledge, but not that all knowledge is non-empirical. However, if in his demonstration, Socrates meant to show that Meno's paradox is completely wrong, and that the recollection theory applies to all forms of knowledge i.e. that all knowledge is non-empirical, which is the `full-strength' doctrine, then he was wrong. Thus we must conclude that the recollection theory is an answer to Meno's paradox, but by no means solves it entirely. Irwin writes that `to resolve Meno's paradox Socrates need only suggest that one have an initial belief about the object of inquiry rather than knowledge.'
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,
... reality of objects, but it may not have the ability to be proven beyond any doubt, and is thus less certain than the logical inquiry.
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
Therefore, through the soul, that has been born before being placed into a physical human body, the human has knowledge. As a result of the soul being immortal and knowing everything, Socrates ties that idea of immortality with the theory of recollection, which claims that our knowledge is inside of us because of the soul and it never learns anything new, only remembers, consequently, serving as an evidence that the soul is pre- existent. Socrates uses the knowledge of the soul to explain that there is no such thing as learning but instead there is discovery of the knowledge that one has and does, by himself, without receiving new information. However, most knowledge is forgotten at birth since we are born without knowing, for example, how to add, subtract,talk, etc. Nonetheless, the knowledge we have, has to be recollected with the help of a teacher. Socrates is able to prove this argument to a degree by using Meno’s slave, who had no prior knowledge of geometry before, as an example of how humans have the knowledge inside of them, through the soul, and they know everything but all they need are a sort of guidance to be able to “free” the knowledge they didn’t know they had inside them all this time. (Plato,
If he so happens to find it, how will he know what it is? (Meno 80d). Plato takes Meno’s first premise, and therefore the conclusion, to be false on the premise that we already come into being knowing. If we’ve already learned all there is to know before birth, then learning is merely recollection of past knowledge. If this is true, then the paradox is invalid and it should not sway one from the task of inquiry. To be clear, the thing that is being recollected is what Plato calls the non-sensible forms.
Many philosophers have inquired about what is knowledge. Most believe that knowledge is attained by being taught, and not suppressed in our mind since birth. In Plato’s Meno, Socrates argues in favor of the pre existing knowledge, that knowledge is essentially suppressed, and is brought to light through questioning. The argument, which comes from this view of “knowledge”, is that if you know what it is you are inquiring about, you don’t need to inquire, because you already know. However, if you do not know what it is you are inquiring about, you are unable to inquire, because you do not know what you inquiring. One outcome about this view is Plato’s rejection of the claim that knowledge is derived from experience. However when you look at the scene between Meno, Socrates and the slave boy, you can see some flaws in this thinking. Plato uses Socrates’ experiment where he asks one of Meno’s slave boys to demonstrate this theory of recalling knowledge by using geometry. In some cases Socrates’ questions are almost leading the slave boy into the answer. Socrates’ places obvious questions in front of the boy that can be recognized immediately. Also, opposite to Plato’s views, I believe that knowledge can be obtained through other means, and not only through questioning and recollection. In the experiment, Socrates guides a slave through a series of geometric proofs to show that the slave already possessed this knowledge and, therefore, that “learning” is not acquiring but recolle...
The section 80d-86c of the Meno, which will be the focus of this paper, features the characters Socrates, Meno, and Meno’s unnamed slave. In this section, Plato uses these characters to discuss the paradox of inquiry and propose a possible solution to it. Modern philosophers refer to the proposed three-part solution to the paradox as the ‘theory of recollection’. During Plato’s time, the theory of recollection was a successful solution to the paradox of inquiry, but with modern science there has surfaced a better way to solve the paradox of inquiry.
Socrates is easily one of the most well known names in the history of philosophy. He is even portrayed via the magic of Hollywood time travel in the popular movie “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure” and was more recently quoted inaccurately on a t-shirt as saying, “I drank what?” Despite his fame, Socrates was not the first philosopher by far, and certainly not the earliest to make meaningful contributions to the field of philosophy. Some of the great “Pre-Socratics” include Anaximenes, Parmenides, Xenophane, and Democritus. The philosophical issues of their days were significantly different from the popular discussions today, though no less relevant, and provide ample fodder for the cannon of philosophical consideration. The issues in consideration here that may benefit from discussion are the problem of the one and the many, the distinction between phusis and nomos as regards the nature of god(s), and distinction between appearance and reality. Appropriate and thorough discussion of these topics in the pre-Socratic context is certain to yield insight into the connection between these three issues.
Moritz Schlick believed the all important attempts at establishing a theory of knowledge grow out of the doubt of the certainty of human knowledge. This problem originates in the wish for absolute certainty. A very important idea is the concept of "protocol statements", which are "...statements which express the facts with absolute simplicity, without any moulding, alteration, or addition, in whose elaboration every science consists, and which precede all knowing, every judgment regarding the world." (1) It makes no sense to speak of uncertain facts, only assertions and our knowledge can be uncertain. If we succeed therefore in expressing the raw facts in protocol statements without any contamination, these appear to be the absolutely indubitable starting points of all knowledge. They are again abandoned, but they constitute a firm basis "...to which all our cognitions owe whatever validity they may possess." (2) Math is stated indirectly into protocol statements which are resolved into definite protocol statements which one could formulate exactly, in principle, but with tremendous effort. Knowledge in life and science in some sense begins with confirmation of facts, and the protocol statements stand at the beginning of science. In the event that protocol statements would be distinguished by definite logical properties, structure, position in the system of science, and one would be confronted with the task of actually specifying these properties. We fin...
Socrates was a Greek philosopher who lived from 469-399 B.C.E. Socrates believed that Philosophy was primarily a social activity, which in fact he made use of quite often. He would find himself roaming the streets of Athens questioning the youth or just anyone who would give him the chance to talk to them. Furthermore, Socrates questions drove people absolutely insane, until the point of absolute consternation if you will. He tried proving a point which is quoted “Look, here we are, two ignorant men, yet two, men who desire to know. I am willing to pursue the question seriously if you are” (Palmer, 31).Ultimately, this meant that the person Socrates was questioning actually didn’t know anything at all, just as well as Socrates himself, so which for the both of them would remain in search of the truth.
Question No. 5 “No knowledge can be produced by a single way of knowing.” Discuss.
When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science, whatever the matter may be.
“Nothing can be known with certainty'; Is this statement true? Are you certain? In this essay I plan to show that nothing can be known with certainty, I will examine the truth and certainty of life and of humans, and prove that nothing can be known for certain.
... when he is discussing the unexamined life. When Socrates mentions the oracle, he is explaining how one can believe he knows all but still can question life. Although he believes that a smarter man will not be found, Socrates still questions and examines the life he leads. This is the basic concept of philosophy, to try to examine and understand what is going on in life. Socrates understands that without this questioning, there would be no philosophy or a worthwhile life. (Plato 25)