What is Meno’s Paradox? First, who is Meno? The Meno is one of the earlier Platonic writings, which include Socrates and which look to try to define an ethic, in this case virtue. Meno himself is seemingly a man who is greedy for wealth, greedy for power, ambitious, and a back-stabber who tries to play everything to his own advantage.
Meno starts by questioning Socrates. Can virtue be taught? Socrates says to Meno, well, what makes a virtue a virtue. Meno comes to the borrowed point that virtue is “to find joy in beautiful things and have power”. Socrates retorts by saying “do you think men desire just good things?” While explaining themselves they came upon what becomes Meno’s Paradox. Is virtue something learned and can we learn things without already knowing them?
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.
This brought them back to virtue. It is a type of knowledge; clearly able to be taught says Meno’s. They both question virtue. Does is make us good? Yes. Beneficial? Yes. It comes from the soul, Socrates states. He doubts that virtue is knowledge, therefore unteachable and coming from within. To really say who is virtuous, and if it cannot be taught, then there can’t be teachers because who is virtuous enough to teach it?
The incident in which Chris wastes the moose is a turning point in the story. Discuss the scene in relation to his character.
Seeing as both Socrates and himself do not know what virtue is, Meno declares that they are unable to recognize or even discover it. After that Socrates refutes by stating the theory of recollection, and the immortality of the soul. Since Socrates believes that a soul is immortal, any knowledge can be recollected, which is what the theory of recollection is. He proves this through Meno’s slave, who had no prior learning of math or geometry. Through a series of questions, the slave boy is able to determine all of the lengths of the squares that Socrates draws, which explains to Meno that virtue can be recollected if they take enough time to find the
Christopher McCandless was a hurt soul indeed. He used his knowledge of freedom and spirituality that he saw in author’s writings to take it out of context and explore the wilderness on his own. Seeking a way out of his unfortunate hardship in a dysfunctional family he set out to achieve living on his own within his own thoughts in the Alaskan wilderness. I believe that Chris McCandless was crazy, and he was somewhat unaware in the reality of his decisions. Chris was bright yet made bad decisions, he could make friends easily, but left impressions on them, and he didn’t know enough about living in the wild which would ultimately cause his death.
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.
With the use of Socrates’ elenchus , Meno finds himself in aporia , and leads him to introduce us to, what is titled, the paradox of knowledge. It is, as he states:
This fails to be taken into account that Chris had already lived in a hostile environment of a different kind. Both his Father and Mother were constantly working and arguing with one another, “‘I was always on mom and dad’s case because they worked all the time and were never around’...” (Krakauer 129). They failed to give Chris and Carine, Chris’ sister who he adored and loved very much, a healthy environment to grow in. Critics may say that McCandless suffered from psychological problems caused by the abusive environment he grew up in, yet according to the Joyful Heart Foundation “A Child who has been abused can go on to have a healthy and productive life” (“Joyful Heart Foundation”). Chris’ journals and other writing indicates that he lived a rich and productive life, “I have lived through much, and now I think I have found what is needed for happiness.”(Christopher McCandless). Chris would continue to hold a grudge over his father for continuing his relationship with his first wife Marcia. Chris resented his father for his lies and immoral actions; direct evidence of why Chris rejects his parents ' spirituality. In a letter to Carine, Chris declared “I’m going to divorce them as my parent once and for all and never speak to either of those idiots again as long as I live. I’ll be through with them once and for all forever”(Chris McCandless). Walter McCandless’ actions were shameful and dishonorable, and Chris’ abandonment of him can be justified by these actions and their consequence. Not only did Walter have a hypocritical attitude when it came to raising his kids, he held them to the strict and unforgivable expectations. I strongly believe that Chris’s actions were motivated by some type of revenge and like Schadenfreude said “If someone enjoys the misfortune of others, then there’s something
This fails to be taken into account that Chris had already lived in a hostile environment of a different kind. Both his Father and Mother were constantly working and arguing with one another, “‘I was always on mom and dad’s case because they worked all the time and were never around’...” (Krakauer 129). They failed to give Chris and Carine, Chris’ sister who he adored and loved very much, a healthy environment to grow in. Critics may say that McCandless suffered from psychological problems caused by the abusive environment he grew up in, yet according to the Joyful Heart Foundation “A Child who has been abused can go on to have a healthy and productive life” (“Joyful Heart Foundation”). Chris’ journals and other writing indicate that he lived a rich and productive life, “I have lived through much, and now I think I have found what is needed for happiness.”(Christopher McCandless). Chris would continue to hold a grudge over his father for continuing his relationship with his first wife Marcia. Chris resented his father for his lies and immoral actions; direct evidence of why Chris rejects his parents ' spirituality. In a letter to Carine, Chris declared “I’m going to divorce them as my parent once and for all and never speak to either of those idiots again as long as I live. I’ll be through with them once and for all forever”(Chris McCandless). Walter McCandless’ actions were shameful and dishonorable, and Chris’ abandonment of him can be justified by these actions and their consequence. Not only did Walter have a hypocritical attitude when it came to raising his kids, he held them to the strict and unforgivable expectations. I strongly believe that Chris’s actions were motivated by some type of revenge and like Schadenfreude said “If someone enjoys the misfortune of others, then there’s something in
...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.'
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.
The Meno is another story written by Plato in which Socrates uses his method of inquiry on the youth of Athens. The story illustrates how successful the Socratic method is in terms of helping the city of Athens by creating a more educated and ethical community. The story’s dialogue begins with Meno asking Socrates if virtue can be taught, and Socrates responds by saying “I myself, Meno, am as poor as my fellow citizens in this matter, and I blame myself for my complete ignorance about virtue” implying that he does not know the true definition of virtue, nor does anyone else, making it impossible to teach. Meno claims that virtue is different for different people based on things such as sex or age, and Socrates rejects this idea. Meno then proposes that virtue is the desire for good ...
It has puzzled many philosophers throughout the ages. Socrates’s theory of recollection attempts to solve the paradox. The theory does answer the paradox in a way. However, theory itself has many problems including its circular nature and its purpose. The goal is to give Meno the instruction of how to enquire virtue when nobody knows what virtue is. The theory only says that Meno may be able to learn about virtue because his soul is immortal. He will be fine as long as he is engaging in the process of recollection. The paradox’s problem still remains
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.
(Yoder-Wise, 2015, p. 7). Emotional intelligence involves managing the emotions of others while owning personal emotions. According to Skholer, “Researchers define emotional intelligence (EI) as the ability to recognize/monitor one’s own and other people’s emotions, to differentiate between different feelings, and to use emotional information to guide thinking, behavior, and performance.” (Skholer & Tziner, 2017).
Emotional Intelligence, also known as ‘EI’, is defined as the ability to recognize, authoritize and evaluate emotions. The ability to control and express our own emotions is very important but so is our ability to understand, interpret and respond to the emotions of others. To be emotionally intelligent one must be able to perceive emotions, reason with emotions, understand emotions and manage emotions.