Socrates argued that actively seeking out knowledge leads to the ability of man to moderate his behavior accordingly. If one examines a situation thoughtfully, and from several angles, the most logical course of action will present itself. By exercising this method of reasoning a person becomes wise. Socrates would call this the ability to govern the qualities of your soul properly and it is undoubtedly what he sought. The process brings out the virtuous qualities in man and allows him to make decisions based on truth, which leads ultimately to good. Discipline of the mind can only benefit its owner; and thus knowledge is worth seeking.
Socrates defines knowledge as absolute truth. He believes that everything in the universe is innately connected; if one thing is known then potentially everything can be derived from that one truth. The fundamental ideas that Socrates seeks to uncover are called forms. This concept is illustrated when Socrates questions Meno on what virtue is. Meno answer with several examples of what is virtuous. This of course is not what Socrates is asking; he is asking Meno what all virtuous acts share in common. For Socrates this relationship between all virtuous acts is what virtue fundamentally is. A person can see virtuous acts but cannot see virtue. Because of this, the idea of virtue must exist somewhere independent of the perceivable world. This is true with all forms or ideas of perfection: they are something that cannot be known by human sense but reasoned out by individual human thought.
One cannot, however, mistake knowledge for right opinion. Socrates makes distinctions between right opinion and knowledge. Opinions are not something that one can seek because they are beliefs held on shaky ground. “True opinions are a fine thing and do all sorts of good so long as they stay in their place, but they will not stay long. They run away from a man’s mind…” (97-98, Meno) Knowledge is unmistakable truth that cannot be changed in an argument: it holds true in all situations in all time.
In matters pertaining to everlasting truths, one can argue that such truths are relative only to man in his finite reflective state. If these absolute ideas are true for all of time, did they exist before man did? If so, who was it that thought of them? Since one must contemplate these absolute truths (and the origin of anything contemplated is in the human mind), they are thus absolute only to humans.
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,
The close outside friendship between the narrator’s wife and Robert, the blind man, provokes the narrator’s insecurities. This friendship has lasted for ten long years. During those years, they have exchanged countless voice tapes wherein they both tell each other what has happened in their respective lives. Because of this, the narrator feels that his wife has told Robert more than Robert needs to know. The narrator laments, "she told him everything or so it seemed to me" (1054). The narrator’s fear is somehow confirmed when Robert arrives and says that he feels like they have already met (1055). The narrator is left wondering what his wife has disclosed. This murky situation leaves the narrator feeling insecure, especially when he sees the warm interaction between his wife and Robert.
Many judges and civilians questioned the intentions of Socrates. They believed he was corrupting their youth and making them go against the beliefs they had been taught by the law, their state and their parents. The intent of questioning and cross-examination, which Socrates often did, was not to make people feel inferior but to make them understand the shallowness of their knowledge. Being skilled in one area, Socrates believed, does not make you wise in all tings. You must be willing to explore and desire a deeper understanding of all things. Socrates wanted Meletus to understand that he was not trying to corrupt the youth or make them deny the gods of the state, but rather, “believe in divine and spiritual agencies” that encourage virtue and doing good to all men. Socrates believed that one should not fear death and punishment if they are doing what they believe to be good, and a person cannot make themselves better by accusing, punishing, or killing a person who questions their knowledge and beliefs. They only way to improve ourselves is by taking what our accusers say about us and digging into the meaning of it. By doing this we can search for understanding and try to make ourselves better. As Socrates says, “the life which is unexamined is not worth living.”
The narrator in Raymond Carver’s "Cathedral" is not a particularly sensitive man. I might describe him as self-centered, superficial, and egotistical. And while his actions certainly speak to these points, it is his misunderstanding of the people and the relationships presented to him in this story which show most clearly his tragic flaw: while Robert is physically blind, it is the narrator who cannot clearly see the world around him.
...l of open-mindedness. “Cathedral” concerns the change in one man’s understanding of himself and the world. From the start of the story the narrator is restricted in his understanding to accept the blind man just as his wife has. He cannot fully wrap around the idea of what makes Robert so special. Until, that is, that the narrator starts drawing the cathedral which starts off as a house almost, and expands into something grander. This short story allows us to realize that the world is greater and further detailed than what we consider it in our confined minds. And that in fact we should never assume that there is nothing more to what the eye can see. It simply states that we shouldn’t form an opinion on someone or something based only on what you see on the exterior, because usually after taking the time to explore, the person or thing will not be what you expected.
One example that shows the husband is "blind" comes in the beginning of the story, before Robert arrives. When the husband and wife talk about Robert, the husband usually refers to him as "this blind man" (1052), and he never uses Robert’s name or assigns any human attributes to him. This shows that the husband does not really see Robert as a person, but just as a blind man who is different because he has a handicap.
`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?'
Pharinet also goes against what she wrote, she says, “There is no doubt that every person has the right to an education.” Then she says, “But not every person should attend college.” She says that everyone should get an education, but everyone should not attend college. Pharinet contradicts what she said. Pharinet has some good points, but I think she could have given us some more
The husband is self-absorbed, ignorant, and insensitive. He is only concerned with how Robert's visit will affect him. The husband's insensitivity is revealed early on in the story. He admits "A blind man in my house was not something I looked forward to" (104). He even goes a step further and suggest to his wife they should go bowling. Although he is insensitive, he is polite. He asks Robert if he would like a drink and tries to engage in small talk. Yet, he shows his insensitivity again when he asks him what side of the train he sat on during his travel.
At first glance, one might assume Raymond Carver’s "Cathedral" illustrates the awakening of an insensitive and insulated husband to the world of a blind man. However, this literal awakening does not account for the fact that the husband awakens also to a world of religious insight, of which he has also been blind. The title and story structure are the first indicators of the importance of the religious thesis. It is also revealed when one examines the language and actions of the characters in the story. Finally, Carver’s previous and subsequent writings give an overall background for the argument that "Cathedral" has a significant religious import.
This story is about how the narrator is unable to see what life is really giving him and finds it through a blind man’s eyes, the friend of his wife. Cathedral is a touching story, in my opinion, as it reflects on what many of us, society, take for granted. It shows how important it is to give people a chance and to be able to see the true meaning of what surrounds us even if it is not important to our personal life. Throughout the short story, Carver uses several figurative language to expose the theme of the story.
In order to demonstrate my argument, it is better to first have an understanding of what knowledge, and correct opinion are, respectively. In the Meno, Socrates argues that “true opinion is no way a worse guide for correct action than knowledge” (Plato 89). To some extent, both correct opinion and knowledge are beneficial to people, because both of them could lead people to success, i.e. “correct action”. Hence correct opinion is as useful as knowledge. In the Meno, Meno has difficulties understanding why “knowledge is prized far more highly than right opinion”, and Socrates explains by illustrating the difference between these two ideas. He argues that correct opinion does not “remain long”, and does not “worth much until one ties them down by [giving] an account of reason why” (Plato 90). Correct opinion, in this sense is not stationary, and it only transforms to knowledge by rec...
I totally agree that Socrates found it important to research about life’s morality and not just think the same way others do. That is a way of proving the knowledge of men. Ones sitting quiet in the corner usually have more knowledge than others that talk so much about what they know. Many men with a high position in life do not always have the most knowledge.
By Characterizing himself –Socrates- as both ignorant and wise, he presents us with one of the most striking paradoxes. Like so many of the other philosophers, is provocative in that its apparent self-contradiction hides an important idea for us readers to discover. Though out this text Socrates ignorance results from his belief that he has no knowledge of moral idea, or moral properties, such as justice, virtue, piety, and beauty. He asserts that, if only he knew the relevant definitions, he would be a moral expert who could answer philosophical questions about moral properties- questions such as is a certain action just? Or is it truly good for a man to be virtuous? Socrates believes that only someone that is “truly wise” would know these essential definitions and be able to provide such expert answers. It is important to determine whether Socrates does, in fact, accept priority of definition principle and, if he does, whether he is committed to a false and problematic principle that subjects him to catastrophic results. A textual analysis will be a philosophic inquiry into Socrates’ conception of knowledge, considering what he believes knowledge to be, how the knowledge of definitions fits into his epistemology, and whether or not his conception of knowledge is philosophical compelling.
However, Meno poses a question which Socrates classifies as the “debater’s argument”. The argument goes like this, “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 it, how will you know that this is the thing that you did not know” (Plato 70)? Meno questions how will they know what they are looking for if they have no previous idea of what it is, and if they find it how will they know that. Because they have no idea of what it is that they are looking for Meno believes that even if they do come across the true meaning of virtue they will have no way of knowing that they have. Socrates counters this argument by inserting his idea of the immortal soul. Socrates states that we all have an immortal soul, which already has all the knowledge that we as man need. However, we as man simply need to discover the knowledge within us. As a result of this concept of the immortal soul, Socrates believes that once they encounter what they are looking for they will know they have found