The questions of what exactly knowledge, virtue and the soul are, are among the most important problems of philosophy The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and exist. If there is life after death, the soul must be capable of an existence separate from the body. The mysteries of birth and death, the lapse of conscious life during sleep, even the most common operations of imagination and memory, which abstract a man from his bodily presence even while awake; all such facts suggest the existence of something other. The quest to put a solid definition on what exactly knowledge and virtue was the basis of Socrates' life. Socrates discusses these things all the time but they seemed to be better explained in two specific dialogues The Meno and The Republic.
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.
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,
When discussing specific knowledge, it is often hard to pin down an exact definition of what it is you are discussing. Often a concept or word will get thrown around so often that it will begin to be taken for granted and when pressed, a person may struggle to pin down specifically what it is they mean. Realizing this, Socrates often went out and attempted to fix these kinds of problems and find out what people actually knew, compared to what they just thought they knew. In the dialogues Euthyphro and Meno, Socrates attempts to pin down definitions for piety and virtue, respectively. In doing so, we are shown that the thinkers in question struggle to define these terms, and attempt to do so in vague terms that may vary heavily under different circumstances. What Socrates is attempting to find is one definitive definition of piety and virtue, what is called his One Form Requirement. Rather than defining something by classifying different parts that make it up, Socrates maintains the belief that piety and virtue both can be simplified into one specific form that describes exactly what makes all F actions F.
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.
As Socrates and Meno were trying to find out the essence of virtues, Socrates said: “The soul, then, as being immortal, and having been born again many times, and having seen all things that exist, whether in this world or in the world below, has knowledge of them all; and it is no wonder that she should be able to call to remembrance all that she ever knew about virtue, and about everything; for as all nature is akin, and the soul has learned all things1.” As he suggested, the soul has already known everything, and thus the acquisition of all knowledge is the process of remembrance, the process of the recalling what we have already known with the help of some hints.
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.
To Socrates, virtue is something that benefits us and therefore considered a type of knowledge. If it is a type of knowledge, then virtue is capable of being taught. Socrates gives an example of gold and silver. Socrates states “It follows that getting hold of the goods will not be virtue any more so than failing to do so, apparently it 's the case that whatever is done justly is virtue; whatever is not done justly is a sort of vice or evil”( Meno 44). Vices are different, they are giving into an act without reasoning. If virtue is something that benefits us rather than causing harm like vice’s do then this supports the fact that virtue is a type of wisdom (Meno 81). With the qualities of the soul, for example courage is separated from their respective vices, by knowledge. Someone who is virtuous has a harmonies soul and someone who does not has no harmony.When someone has a harmonious soul it is said that that they have reached happiness or eudaimonia. The greeks looked at this as human flourishing, or living a good life. For Socrates this was the ultimate goal for humans. Areta was the key way into reaching happiness.Areta translates into virtue and for socrates virtue was excellence.The five classical aretas are wisdom, justice,temperance, courage and piety. If one was to reach eudaimonia one would need to attain all
Socrates states that living is a function of the soul; meaning that only a soul can live or a soul lives better than anything else (1) (Page 42). Anything with a function performs it well by means of its own peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice or lack of virtue (2) (Page 41).This means that something that has a specific function would do it well because of a certain feature or attribute that it obtains. For example, a chainsaw performs its function of cutting by the virtue of its set of sharp blades and badly by its lack of its set of sharp blades or vice of dull blades. Therefore a soul would live by its virtue. So then it must be asked what is the soul’s virtue? The soul has multiple functions not just living. Since only a soul can take care of things,rule, deliberate, and the like, then another function of a soul is to take care of things,rule, deliberate, and the like (3) (Page 41). Only something with a soul could nurture things such as animals and children, rule over a country state or city, and deliberate what is right and what is wrong and come to a decision based off of the deliberation. The soul performs its function of taking care of things, ruling, deliberating and the like well by means of justice (4) (Page 42).Socrates defines justice as having a control and balance that creates harmony within a soul (Pages 53-54). To perform a
The discussion of Plato’s theory of recollection evolved from a single question, “What is virtue?” When questioning Meno on the single definition of virtue, Plato was never satisfied. He never accepted Meno’s answers because Meno gave “virtuous” definitions, not “virtue’s” definition. For example, Meno claimed, “if you want a woman’s virtue, that is easily described. She must be a good housewife, careful with her stores and obedient to her husband. Then there is another virtue for a child, male or female, and another for an old man, free or slave” (Greek Philosophy, 111). All of these are examples of how a person’s role becomes virtuous but never defines what virtue really is. Plato questions Meno’s self-knowledge of virtue, but Meno expounds virtuous characteristics rather than giving a definition of virtue. This presents a problem because if Meno does not know what virtue really is, then he cannot apply which characteristics associate with virtue and which do not. When Plato asks, “Does anyone know what a part of virtue is, without knowing the whole?” (Greek Philosophy, 119), Meno agrees this is simply impossible. This presents a logical argument against Meno’s definition(s) of virtue.
It is thought by Meno that men cannot be taught anything but knowledge, therefore, virtue must be a kind of knowledge in order to be taught. This corresponds with the hypothesis because the conclusion can be reached that, if virtue is knowledge then it can be taught, but if it is not knowledge then it is impossible to teach. However, this leads to a new question that must be answered before a conclusion can be reached: is virtue knowledge? It is later stated that, if knowledge includes all aspects of realit...
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 ...
Meno asks Socrates/Plato the simple question of whether virtue can be taught. Socrates/Plato makes an effort towards answering this question by using his dialectic, the Socratic elenchus. However, his main goal is not to answer the question, but to share his thoughts about the status of the soul. Socrates/Plato cared about the “care of the soul” (pg.6) and was a dualist who believed in two realities. One reality is higher than the other. The higher reality includes Metaphysics and Epistemology. Also according to Socrates/Plato the Soul is made of three parts, Reason, spirit, and appetite. Reason is in the higher reality, spirit is in the middle of both, and appetite is in the lower reality. The status of one’s soul determines one’s ability
One of the problems in his argument is how he believes the soul cannot be taught anything because it knows all and just recollects prior knowledge, but then argues that virtue is a kind of knowledge and it can be taught. (Plato, 87c) This implies that Socrates believes that virtue can be taught to the soul and it’s not something that we are born with. His principal argument of the theory of recollection, tied with immortality of the soul contradicts his other idea that virtue can be taught since it is knowledge. This causes Socrates’ argument to become very questionable, and as a result, can create the following questions; How can virtue be taught to the soul if it’s supposed to know everything? If the soul actually knew everything, then it would know what virtue is. If it does not know everything, especially what virtue is, then does that imply that the soul is not immortal? Socrates agrees, in the beginning, with an idea that he heard wise people talk about in regards to the immortality of the soul. The idea is that the soul is immortal and can, at times, reborn but never destroyed. (Plato, 81b) When relating this idea to Socrates’ argument that the soul is eternal, therefore all knowing, and has been born multiple times, wouldn’t it have been able to know what virtue is, implying that it is part of our knowledge and it is something that we are all born with?
His teachings toward to people were that "virtue is knowledge", that a good man should care for his soul by making himself as wise as possible. To become wise was to achieve knowledge. According to Socrates, virtue is same as knowledge and the wrongdoing is ignorance and it is always involuntary. Socrates arguments about the wrongdoing being involuntary, I think he means that when people do evil things, it is to gain goods for himself in use of evil. Socrates only questions himself for what people believed to be the truth where he created discussion called the Socratic Method. It could be classified as truth only if something passed that method, otherwise, it's not the truth. He would ask many questions and whenever he receives answers, he would ask the question again according to the answer and if the person's being asked doesn't give a good answer to the question, he was to admit he didn't know the answer to the very first question. Socrates didn't know answers to many questions but he kept on questioning over and over again until he found logical answers within the questions being discussed. Socrates knew that people didn't know the answers so he decided to make it open to discussion for everyone. He believed that actual knowledge came from the whole as
In first part (Meno, 78-79, 86c-87c), because Socrates does not know what virtue is and Meno cannot answer it, Socrates says “we would not investigate whether virtue is teachable or not before we investigated what virtue itself is”. What Socrates means here is that, as both of them does not know what is virtue, Socrates uses the same logic as geometers do, when they are asked questions that they do not know, they will make an assumption to answer the questions. Socrates proposes a hypothesis “Among the things existing in the soul, of what sort is virtue, that it should be teachable or not”. Later, Socrates argues “men cannot be taught anything but knowledge?” Which means knowledge comes from teaching. Form this I can say according to virtue is knowledge and knowledge comes from teaching, virtue comes from teaching, because Socrates says “if it is of one kind it can be taught; if it is of a different kind, it cannot.” And both Socrates and Meno agree this.