In Plato’s Meno, Socrates uses ignorance to prove excellence cannot be taught or even attained by human actions. The process involves Socrates purposefully contradicting himself to entice Meno’s focus. Through Socrates, Plato argues particular criteria cannot determine excellence within a collective. Instead, Socrates asserts excellence must be a universal quality and applicable to all individuals, by comparing the human collective to a bee colony. Socrates purposefully fails to use a universally applicable proof for shapes to define a square. All shapHis ignorance is used to inspire Meno’s review of the argument and develop a correct definition for excellence. For Meno’s benefit, Socrates contradicts his methods of deduction and proves excellence is divine. Plato employs Socratic irony to inspire a resolution to a problem by facilitating individual thought and input. As a result, Socrates’ ignorance is based on contradiction because contradiction entices review and the development of a correct resolution. Ultimately, Socrates’ methods entice Meno to assert that both knowledge and excellence are divine gifts or that both are attainable by humans.
Socrates argues excellence must be applicable to the collective because individual excellence is not universal. According to Meno, excellence is based “on our walk of life and our age” (Meno, pg 100, ln 71e-72a). Meno’s resolution that distinct excellences define different individuals reflects a folly in his logic because his inquiry was into a single definition of excellence. Meno’s failure to answer his own question correctly inspires Socrates to guide Meno by ignorance and inquiry to resolve the definition of excellence. Socrates states that “bees [are] all no different from one anot...
... middle of paper ...
...ge is teachable. Socrate purposefully builds of a contradiction to force Meno’s input about excellence. Socrates argues a universal definition is needed to evaluate all constituents of a group. However, Socrates deliberately uses an incorrect proof to illustrate the hazards of an inconsistent and universally false argument. Like the attainability of knowledge, Meno should have argued against Socrates proof that excellence is attainable through proper investigation and pursuit. However, Meno agrees with Socrates that determined excellence is not similar to knowledge. Yet, the very process of equating excellence with knowledge for the purpose of evaluation signifies the values are similar. One conclusion must remain consistent for both excellence and knowledge. Therefore, Meno should have asserted both excellence and knowledge are divine “dispensation” or teachable.
Alain de Botton commences the section by delineating the story of how Socrates became the figure he became. Socrates lived a lifestyle in which he did things that he thought were correct and did not worry much about approval from society. de Botton states, “every society has notions of what one should believe and how one should behave in order to avoid suspicion and unpopularity” (9). In other words, de Botton believes that society has placed views for people to know what is right and what is wrong. People will submit to conformity by behaving in ways that people will view as “acceptable”.
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 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.
In what is noted as one of Plato first accounts, we become acquainted with a very intriguing man known as Socrates; a man, whose ambition to seek knowledge, inevitably leaves a significant impact on humanity. Most of all, it is methodologies of attaining this knowledge that makes him so mesmerizing. This methodology is referred to as Socratic irony, in literature. In any case, I will introduce the argument that Plato's Euthyphro is extremely indicative of this type of methodology, for the reason being that: Socrates's portrays a sense of intellectual humility.
...h Protagoras uses to attack Socrates's assertion that civic aptitude is like other skills, and can therefore only be practiced at any level of excellence by a few. Protagoras devotes the second half of his speech to refuting directly the notion that these civic aptitudes cannot be taught; this argument is not framed as a story, but as a systematic analysis of punishment. His long speech (though very different to Socrates's primary method of dialectic argumentation) actually does contain an element of internal dialogue: myth is contrasted to logical reasoning, and the two forms respond and counter each other. While Socrates will attempt to demolish Protagoras's arguments, Protagoras's double-nature suggests, perhaps, that we should not side completely with Socrates. There is merit in what Protagoras says, even if this merit must first be salvaged from his sophistry.
In Plato’s Meno, Socrates purposefully uses ignorance and irony to insufficiently define excellence for Meno. Initially, Meno argues a particular definition, which is a universally inconsistent proof, is sufficient to define excellence. However, Socrates asserts that the definition of excellence must be consistent and applicable to all individuals, by comparing individuals in a society to bees in a colony. Socrates demonstrates the failure of a particular proof to define all constituents of a group. In order to exemplify the errors of inconsistent and universally inapplicable definition, Socrates uses a universally inconsistent proof to erroneously assert a figure is not a shape. Socrates purposefully applies an inconsistent proof to define all figures because Meno, as a student, must be critical of a teacher’s argument. In order to stimulate Meno’s development, Socrates erroneously uses a consistent proof to determine excellence is different than knowledge. Unable to define excellence, Socrates deliberately attributes excellence to the divine. Plato employs Socratic irony to inspire a new definition of excellence and determines the errors in particular proofs. In order to emphasize contradictions and stress the areas necessary for logical review, Socratic ignorance fails to determine a universal conclusion from a consistent proof. Ultimately, Meno’s review of Socrates’ argument must determine that both knowledge and excellence are defined by a consistent proof. As a result, both excellence and knowledge are either divine awards or attainable by humans.
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:
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.
Whether Socrates is portrayed correctly or not, he certainly was a great man. His contribution to western thought cannot be denied. For even if his teachings were different from what they are known to be at present, his influence on Plato is immense. And so, it is no small matter to describe the tragic passing of such a man as Socrates was and remains for philosophy today. Yet in all the indignation which is expected to arise at the death of Socrates, the panache with which he departs is captured excellently in Plato's “Apology.” Specifically, at the end of the "Apology," Socrates makes a very important statement that has had great impact on philosophy ever since its original proclamation. The Stoics in particular have taken this to be the cornerstone of their ideology. The statement made is that "you must regard one thing at least as certain—that no harm can come to a good man either in his life or after his death,” (Plato 100). The following examination focuses therefore on a brief explanation of the circumstances which lead to this statement being made by Socrates, as well as a closer look at why he thinks this to be the case. It is assumed that this statement is true, and validation for that assumption is to be sought as well.
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.
In the Meno, Plato addresses the question of virtue, what it is, how to obtain and if virtue can be taught. Meno came to conclusion after a long discussion with Socrates that it is impossible to know what virtue is. The Meno’x paradox states, “if one knows what virtue is, he does not need to search for it. However, if one does not know what virtue is, how can he search for it? He may not know he has it even when he gets it.”
Peter Geach’s essay on the Socratic fallacy poses a large problem for the Socratic method of obtaining answers to the What-is-F? question. He claims that Socrates makes an error when he refuses to accept examples as knowledge, primarily citing the Euthyphro as the source. In my last essay, I examined whether or not Socrates commits the Socratic fallacy in two of the early dialogues, namely, the Euthyphro and the Laches. So, I shall begin by giving a brief recapitulation of my previous essay as well as outlining Geach’s Socratic fallacy. Additionally, I will bring up an objection that Beversluis raises to my view. Then I shall explain the importance of the fallacy and the theory of the fallacy within the Socratic dialogues as it relates to
Socrates’ argument was unique in that he tried to convince the jury he was just an average man and not to be feared, but in actuality demonstrated how clever and tenacious he was. He begins with an anecdote of his visit to the Oracle of Delphi, which told him that there was no man smarter than he. He, being as humble as he is, could not take the Oracle’s answer for granted and went about questioning Athenians he felt surpassed his intelligence. However, in questioning politicians, poets, and artisans, he found that they claimed to know of matters they did not know about. Socrates considered this to be a serious flaw, and, as Bill S. Preston, Esq. put it: that “true wisdom consists in knowing that you know nothing.”
Socrates, a world renown Greek philosopher, is respected for intentionally making himself appear more intelligent by making others look and feel dumb. Those who are aware of Socrates’ intentions should not be surprised of his actions in The Republic of Plato. As the narrator, Socrates writes a monologue between himself, the master, and Plato, the student. Socrates soon addresses two main questions that lead to greater discussion throughout the book: “what is justice?” and “is it greater to be just or unjust”? As we read into Book 2, we are introduced to Glaucon and Adeimantus, who intend to challenge Socrates on his two main questions. Glaucon’s challenge to Socrates is to: show
4. In Plato’s Meno, Socrates argues that human beings do not desire things that they believe to be bad. Socrates presents a valid argument—that is, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. However, his argument is unsound—that is, the argument is valid but holds a false premise. I will argue against the soundness of Socrates’ argument.