Immortal Horcrux and Our Memory
In Plato’s Meno dialogue, Socrates wondered if Meno had understood the paradox that he had proposed by asking:
“Do you realize what a debater’s argument you are bringing up, that a man cannot search either for what he knows, or for what he does not know? He cannot search for what he 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.” (Socrates, 70) As summarized eloquently, Meno’s belief is that man cannot learn something on their own, because they could not truly recognize a concept that they have never encountered before. Socrates perplexes the issue by revealing its paradoxical nature – you could neither seek knowledge you already have, nor knowledge that you do not. Meno’s paradox is an epistemological puzzle that is difficult to answer directly. Refuting Meno’s claim that one cannot recognize what one does not already know seems an easy task, merely
…show more content…
This seemingly simple solution, however, does not quite reconcile the deeper nature of this concern: How does one recognize it, can it be said to be true knowledge, or is it perhaps something altogether different than what was first assumed? This raises multiple tiers of questions: How do we learn? How do we know what we already know? How do we know that we know? These are a series of questions that Plato seeks to answer with his “Theory of Recollection”. The “Theory of Recollection” is outlined by Socrates in Plato’s Meno and Phaedo dialogues. Socrates first presents it in the Meno dialogue in a demonstration using one of Meno’s servants. Socrates guides the servant
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,
Before addressing the fundamental issues of the Theory of Recollection, it is worth noting that Socrates never addresses the second half of Meno’s Paradox- assuming one has found what it is they are looking for, how is one to know they have found it if they do not know what they are looking for? There seems to lack a method for verifying one’s answer and if you cannot confirm that what you have found is in fact what you were looking for then inquiry seems to be never-ending. Although this is a discussion for another time, it does highlight an issue, which Socrates faces in the first part of the paradox, the part he addresses, which is the problem of circularity. Ironically, Socrates’ Theory of Recollection, which is used to overcome Meno’s Paradox, is subject to the criticism of being paradoxical. The claim that the soul is immortal and all knowing is necessary for his Theory of Recollection to be true, thus it is vital that Socrates be able prove the immortality of the soul. The issue of circularity arises when Socrates attempts to prove the immortality through the use of the slave boy. According to Socrates, if the slave boy can recall knowledge about geometry, a subject which he appears to know nothing about, then he has successfully proven the existence of an immortal and all knowing soul. Socrates seems to suggest that the knowledge the slave boy is able to recall is evidence of the immortality and all knowing nature of the soul, while also stating that the immortality and all knowing nature of the soul is the reason why learning is just recollection (Fraser). Therefore, his ability to recollect past information is based on the existence of the all knowing and immortal soul and the existence of this soul is based in the slav...
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.
What began as Socrates’ process of inquiry, the impression that one cannot obtain knowledge about something without having a definition for it first, led to Meno’s Paradox, a seemingly intelligent argument that mindlessly concludes that knowledge of something can never actually and fully be obtained. Seeing that the paradox had this visibly defective conclusion, Plato disproves Meno’s third premise, and by its fault, premise four is restated as, you can, actually, discover something, which corresponds with Plato’s view of how a person obtains 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:
`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?'
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.
In “Apology” by Plato, Socrates stated, “… there are plenty of persons, as soon as enough discover, who think that they know anything, but really know little or nothing” (Plato 32). In other words, humans are imperfect and this explains the limited nature of human knowing. Even when we consider things for a while and in our best operation, we can still make mistakes because we are imperfect. At the same time, the student must know his/her purpose for doing something. “God orders me to fulfill the philosopher’s mission of searching into myself and other men….” (Plato 35), stated Socrates. He knows that his job was to teach the young men to follow his footsteps and live a good and virtuous life. Just like Socrates, our modern education system should be concerned with making sure that students are learning what is truly important. There will be different levels of education as one goes through his or her life cycle. The modern model represents the way of growing through education and continues to change. If one is motivated, he or she will be successful in his or her life and become a better educated person. In the “Apology,” Socrates visited the politicians, poets and artisans to see which group was wiser than him. He realized that all three groups lacked knowledge in some type of way. Socrates stated that the politician “knows nothing, and thinks that he knows” (Plato 31). Both the
Although Socrates method of inquiry may have first appeared to be a malicious attempt for Socrates to earn power, his intentions were pure from the beginning. The people of Athens were unable to admit their ignorance. They allowed their egos to blind them from the truths behind Socrates’ teachings. Had the people of Athens given Socrates a chance, they would have realized he was not trying to prove anyone wrong, on the contrary, Socrates was pushing for people to thrive for knowledge to create a better community within the city of Athens.
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
possess everything we will ever know, as Plato seems to think, or the mind could
Therefore, through the soul, that has been born before being placed into a physical human body, the human has knowledge. As a result of the soul being immortal and knowing everything, Socrates ties that idea of immortality with the theory of recollection, which claims that our knowledge is inside of us because of the soul and it never learns anything new, only remembers, consequently, serving as an evidence that the soul is pre- existent. Socrates uses the knowledge of the soul to explain that there is no such thing as learning but instead there is discovery of the knowledge that one has and does, by himself, without receiving new information. However, most knowledge is forgotten at birth since we are born without knowing, for example, how to add, subtract,talk, etc. Nonetheless, the knowledge we have, has to be recollected with the help of a teacher. Socrates is able to prove this argument to a degree by using Meno’s slave, who had no prior knowledge of geometry before, as an example of how humans have the knowledge inside of them, through the soul, and they know everything but all they need are a sort of guidance to be able to “free” the knowledge they didn’t know they had inside them all this time. (Plato,
In the essay “The Allegory of the Cave,” Plato addresses how humans generally do not pursue knowledge. Most humans are satisfied with what they already know and do not want to expand their knowledge. Plato uses simple examples to help the reader understand his logic on why humans do not expand their 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.
Socrates was a Greek philosopher who lived from 469-399 B.C.E. Socrates believed that Philosophy was primarily a social activity, which in fact he made use of quite often. He would find himself roaming the streets of Athens questioning the youth or just anyone who would give him the chance to talk to them. Furthermore, Socrates questions drove people absolutely insane, until the point of absolute consternation if you will. He tried proving a point which is quoted “Look, here we are, two ignorant men, yet two, men who desire to know. I am willing to pursue the question seriously if you are” (Palmer, 31).Ultimately, this meant that the person Socrates was questioning actually didn’t know anything at all, just as well as Socrates himself, so which for the both of them would remain in search of the truth.