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...
After admitting that he does not know what virtue is almost halfway through Plato’s Meno, Meno states a few premises involving the acquisition of knowledge, which coined the term Meno’s paradox. In this paradox Meno says that virtue or knowledge is impossible to learn because of it. Meno then questions Socrates on how they can find what virtue is if they can’t discover it which I believe Socrates resolves by stating the theory of recollection and how the theory of recollection shows one part of the premise false by conversing with the slave boy.
circular reasoning found in the foundations of Socrates’ Recollection theory - that the soul must be immortal and all knowing and proof of that is that learning is recollection, but in order for this sort of recollection to take place it requires that the soul be all knowing and immortal. Even if one were to accept the Theory of Recollection as an adequate refutation of Meno’s Paradox, there is still the issue with the slave boy interrogation. The interrogation itself is suspect, as it does not explicitly prove that the slave boy is in fact recollecting. With foundational problems such as these I cannot accept Socrates’ Theory of Recollection as sufficient answer to Meno’s Paradox.
Plato's best-known distinction between knowledge and opinion occurs in the Meno. The distinction rests on an analogy that compares the acquisition and retention of knowledge to the acquisition and retention of valuable material goods. But Plato saw the limitations of the analogy and took pains to warn against learning the wrong lessons from it. In the next few pages I will revisit this familiar analogy with a view to seeing how Plato both uses and distances himself from it.
What began as Socrates’ process of inquiry, the impression that one cannot obtain knowledge about something without having a definition for it first, led to Meno’s Paradox, a seemingly intelligent argument that mindlessly concludes that knowledge of something can never actually and fully be obtained. Seeing that the paradox had this visibly defective conclusion, Plato disproves Meno’s third premise, and by its fault, premise four is restated as, you can, actually, discover something, which corresponds with Plato’s view of how a person obtains knowledge.
The general topic is Plato’s theory of recollection. Is Plato’s Theory of Recollection the plausible solution to Meno’s Paradox of Knowledge? Throughout many of his dialogues Plato often concludes that we cannot know something through our senses. He often concludes that we became acquainted with our knowledge in a previous existence. In Meno, Socrates states that, “As the soul is immortal, has been born often, and has seen all things here and in the underworld, there is nothing which it has not learned; so it is in no way surprising that it can recollect the things it knew before…” In many of Plato’s works is it difficult to recognize as to where our thoughts and/or total knowledge initially came “to be.”
Socrates then managed to verify his theory by demonstrating it on one of Meno’s slaves. He did not directly teach or instruct anything to that boy slave who originally did not know about geometry. Instead, Socrates provided that slave with hints and guided his thoughts step by step. As a result, the boy slave found out a simple geometrical theorem which apparently “emerged” from his mind.
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.
In the Meno, Plato justifies the possibility for one's mind to uncover knowledge. Plato presents a valid theory on how our minds can obtain knowledge. Socrates asks “What is virtue?” , when questioning Meno on the single definition of virtue, Socrates was never satisfied. He never accepted Meno’s answers because Meno gave “virtuous” definitions, not the definition of “virtue.” For example, Meno claimed, “A man's virtue, consists of being able to manage public affairs and in so doing to benefit his friends and harm his enemies and to be careful no harm comes to himself." Meno does not know what virtue really is, so he cannot apply which characteristics associate with virtue and which do not. So when Socrates asks, “Does anyone know what a part of virtue is, without knowing the whole?”, Meno agrees this is not possible. This presents a logical argument against Meno’s definition of virtue. Socrates believes the conversation to search for what virtue really is should continue although they achieved no success in their first effort to form a definition. Meno questions Socrates, “And how will you inquire, into that of which you are totally ignorant? What sort of thing, among those things which you know not, will you put forth as the object of your seeking? And even if you should chance upon it, how will you ever know that it is the thing which you not know?”. Socrates explores the subject that one not only obtains knowledge through perception but can also obtain knowledge through reason and hard work. Socrates then tells Meno of the theory of recollection.
In the Meno, Plato justifies the possibility for one’s mind to uncover knowledge. Knowing one can obtain knowledge motivates the mind to gain more knowledge. Plato explains the theory of recollection by first questioning what virtue is, then demonstrating the process through the questioning of a slave boy. Although a few weaknesses present themselves in Plato’s argument, Plato presents a valid theory on how our minds can obtain knowledge. This paper focuses on exploring Plato’s theory of recollection by examining the strengths and weaknesses of his discussion with Meno.
In The Allegory of the Cave by Plato, a controversial issue has been whether “pouring in of knowledge” is not education or whether it is education. On one hand, some argue that education is the process of receiving or giving logical instruction. From this perception, education is all about learning and teaching from one generation to another. On the other hand, however, others argue that education is not all about “pouring in of knowledge.” In the words of Plato, “education isn’t what some people declare it to be, naming, putting knowledge into souls that lack it, like putting sight into blind eyes (5). The issue is what is the true meaning of education. Though some may say that education is the process of receiving or giving knowledge, I will
Socrates’s dialogue with the slave (Meno, 77-78) shows the derivation of proof. This dialogue consists two main views: 1 if the slave continues along this path of investigation, he will acquire knowledge; 2 in this practice, he will discover his own knowledge exits within him. After confirm the slave’s answers are from his own. I believe Socrates proves we can acquire knowledge and access to knowledge due to we potentially have it. Socrates want to explore how to solve problems through the theory of recollections, as he admits potential knowledge is that our investigation must proceed from this knowledge.
Knowledge is defined as information and skills one acquires through experience or education. There is; however, a certain knowledge than cannot be certain and is unjustifiable from the scientific perspective. Karen Armstrong, Robert Thurman, and Azar Nafisi wrote about this type of knowledge in their essays: “Homo Religiosus,” “Wisdom,” and “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” respectively. Each of these authors has a different view of what knowledge is exactly, how it can be achieved, and what it means to have achieved it, but each author takes on the view that the concept of knowledge should be viewed from a social stance. Armstrong refers to this uncertain knowledge as “myth,” Thurman refers to it as “wisdom,” and Nafisi refers to it as “upsilamba";
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,
The paradox of knowledge is as follows: “If you know what you’re looking for, inquiry is unnecessary. If you don’t know what you’re looking for, inquiry is impossible. Therefore, inquiry is either unnecessary or impossible.”(Cohen) Meno struggles with understanding this idea. This is then when Socrates presents his theory to Meno. Socrates begins his argument by claiming that the soul is immortal, “seen all things here and in the underworld”, and “there is nothing which it has not learned”(Plato 71) in the world. The soul knows everything and even when a person cannot immediately remember information, it can be recollected. Recollection occurs through an external stimulus, which acts as a trigger to a forgotten memory, or the relearning of
Socrates defends the philosophy that if a man can recall one fact only, as long as he does not get tired of searching for it, then searching and learning are as a whole, a recollection. Meno does not understand this argument. Socrates uses a discussion with a Greek boy you explain this to Meno. “Do you know that I square figure is like this”, Socrates asks. “I do” the boy replies. He then asks, “Is a square is a four sided figure with equal sides?” Yes, he replies. Socrates questions the size, the lines and comes to asking that if the figure is two feet this way and one foot that way then the line would really be two feet. The boy agrees. Now if its also two feet the other way, then it would be four feet total. The boy agrees. Then he adds a figure the same size, this would make it eight feet. Boy agrees. He asks the boy to explain how long each side of the wall is. He responds with twice the length. Socrates then tells Meno that he didn’t teach anything; just questioned until the boy reached the answer he wanted.