To research Plato's paradox in the Meno, we can first consult the definition of what platonism is. Websters defines platonism as "actual things are copies of transcendent ideas and that these ideas are the objects of true knowledge apprehended by reminiscence." For this essay, we will assume that trancendency is- "that which is beyond comprehension", and reminiscence as "past experience". The Meno is a dialogue between Socrates, a scholar and Meno, who eventually became an explorer. For this essay, however, we will assume that Meno is at the time of the dialogue, an upper-class citizen of average to better than average intelligence and superior stubbornness.
The piece, according to the translation by G.M.A. Grube is thought to have taken place in approximately 402 B.C. in Athens, Greece. Late in the text, a third character, Anytus, a politician, who would eventually be an accuser of Socrates, joins in the dialogue. In the text, Meno in trying to define virtue accidentally slips in to a paradox or contradictory statement, which Socrates immediately refutes. It is the purpose of this paper to recognize the paradox, examine how Socrates disproves the paradox through argument and evidence.
Socrates also brings up a key distinction between true opinion and knowledge, relating to the paradox, which will too be examined. Socrates then gives basis for more argument regarding the paradox, and why he does this will also be examined. The initial argument takes place when Socrates challenges Meno to define virtue. Meno does not realize here what he has started. Meno has before inquired whether virtue is a quality that can be taught or if it is a natural trait, that men are born with.
Socrates, in method true to form, twists the question and re-poses it to Meno to see if Meno can answer it all on his own. Meno lists what he thinks are virtuous qualities, and is content at that simple definition. Socrates then says: "I seem to be in luck, Meno, while I am looking for one virtue, I have found you to have a whole swarm of them."Meno's frustration begins to set in. He tries theatrical metaphor to define virtue, as well as relating to physical philosophy and philosophers such as Empedocles.Meno at this point gives up and hands the philosophy to Socrates. Socrates presents Meno with a paradox:"....He cannot search for what (a debater) knows- since he knows it, there is no need to search- nor for what he does not know, for he does not know what to look for.
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,
Socrates, a man who lived thousands of years ago, is perhaps the most renowned philosopher of all time. His work was written down years later by his close friend, Plato. From these readings, we may find some ideas and thoughts of his that seem to contradict others. This seems to be evident in Plato’s stories The Apology, The Crito, and The Republic.
Consequently, In Plato's Euthyphro, our acquaintance with Socrates is immensely beneficial to society, as we obtain awareness on such an innovative method of achieving intuition. The Socratic approach is now a fundamental approach implemented in daily conversation in society Furthermore, not only is Socrates is able to verify that the true seekers are the wise; he also validates the notion that the answers to many questions are merely questions. Simply because, life is so debate that certain subjects begin to intertwine. To sum up, Plato's Euthyphro is extremely indicative of this Socratic irony, for the reason being that: Socrates's portrays a sense of intellectual humility.
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.
Plato. Menexenus. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Trans. Benjamin Jowett. Ed. Patricia Bizzell & Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001. 60A-63B. Print.
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:
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:
Plato believes the conversation to search for what virtue really is should continue despite achieving no success in their first efforts to form a satisfactory definition. Meno becomes very aggravated with Plato and proposes a valid argument to him. Meno exclaims,
Meno is very surprised at Socrates’s answer, therefore he decides to explain the definition to Socrates. On his first attempt, Meno gives a list of all the virtues that men and women have. Socrates points out that it is just a list of various virtue but it does not define what virtue is. He makes reference of Meno’s information is like a swarm of bees. There may be different types of bee but we do not know the essence that makes them a bee. On Meno’s second attempt, he defines virtue as the power to rule over people. Socrates asks Meno to add “justly” in the phrase “to rule over people.” He then asks Meno if justice is virtue or a virtue. The example here is that roundness is a shape but not shape itself. There are many other shapes. Same concept applies to virtue. Justice is a virtue but there are many other virtues. Meno does not give up, he attempts to explain the third time. This time, he says that virtue is to desire beautiful things and power to have them. Those beautiful things are wealth, health and fame. Once again, Meno’s answer is just a composite of many things put together. It does not give the definition. Meno asks Socrates to answer
In his defense, Socrates claims over and again that he is innocent and is not at all wise, “…for I know that I have no wisdom, small or great.” Throughout the rest of his oration he seems to act the opposite as if he is better than every man, and later he even claims that, “At any rate, the world has decided that Socrates is in some way superior to other men.” This seems to be his greatest mistake, claiming to be greater than even the jury.
As always happens in Socratic dialog, Socrates is left without an answer to his original question. Socrates wished to know what characteristic all pious actions have in common (that is to say what is both necessary and sufficient for an action to be pious), but Euthyphro, the so-called expert on piety, was shown to not know himself. This is what is common to most other Socratic dialogs. Socrates asks an expert for a practical definition of some virtue, and the supposed expert being asked is shown to not have a coherent and consistent answer.
For these two articles that we read in Crito and Apology by Plato, we could know Socrates is an enduring person with imagination, because he presents us with a mass of contradictions: Most eloquent men, yet he never wrote a word; ugliest yet most profoundly attractive; ignorant yet wise; wrongfully convicted, yet unwilling to avoid his unjust execution. Behind these conundrums is a contradiction less often explored: Socrates is at once the most Athenian, most local, citizenly, and patriotic of philosophers; and yet the most self-regarding of Athenians. Exploring that contradiction, between Socrates the loyal Athenian citizen and Socrates the philosophical critic of Athenian society, will help to position Plato's Socrates in an Athenian legal and historical context; it allows us to reunite Socrates the literary character and Athens the democratic city that tried and executed him. Moreover, those help us to understand Plato¡¦s presentation of the strange legal and ethical drama.
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.
Socrates was a man that was in search of the truth about wisdom. However, it became more than just a simple search, rather it tuned into a complex assignment where the answer of true wisdom leads Socrates to be brought up on charges of corrupting society. As a philosopher Socrates is known to take every angle of an argument and to never put belief into one idea. Therefore Socrates was known to perplex even simple ideas and to frustrate his opponent. People who have experienced this accuse Socrates of making his own truths about the natural and unnatural world when in actuality he his still in search of a better meaning. This becomes a key factor in the "Apology" where Socrates is brought up on charges for corrupting the mind of the youths and the people that attended to his lectures. His best defence comes about when he tells the Athenian jury about his account of a confrontation of his friend Chairephon and the Oracle of Delphi.