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...
... middle of paper ...
...is inability to provide sufficient evidence for the theory resulted in the failure to overcome Meno’s Paradox.
Socrates’ attempt to overcome Meno’s Paradox is a failed attempt due to the circular reasoning found in the foundations of Socrates’ Recollection theory - that the soul must be immortal and all knowing and proof of that is that learning is recollection, but in order for this sort of recollection to take place it requires that the soul be all knowing and immortal. Even if one were to accept the Theory of Recollection as an adequate refutation of Meno’s Paradox, there is still the issue with the slave boy interrogation. The interrogation itself is suspect, as it does not explicitly prove that the slave boy is in fact recollecting. With foundational problems such as these I cannot accept Socrates’ Theory of Recollection as sufficient answer to Meno’s Paradox.
Socrates first argument is on the Theory of Opposites in which he discusses the nature of opposite things and beings. Socrates makes his claim that everything that is, comes from its opposite being. “If something smaller comes to be it will come from something larger before, which became smaller” (71a). What he is trying to explain is that something that is considered to be “smaller” requires it to once have been “larger” previously, so its size decreased in time. Just as large and small, Socrates compares the matter of life and death as being opposites in which the soul is what moves on. The issue with this reasoning is that unlike moving from opposites such as small to large or large to small, where an object may increase or decrease, life to death is not a reversible process. Life can move to death but it cannot reverse and move from death to life. Life cannot come from death, and though life is contrary to death it is not the contradicting opposite, and it cannot be considered to follow the Theory of Opposites. It is practically impossible for something to be alive and dead at the same time, so the soul that transfers from life to death it must be able to exist within the body or out of it. Socrates believes that th...
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.
This quote can be used to argue what kind things he would say to our society by providing an example of what his beliefs are. He is saying that once we can only become philosophers we will be able to stop indulging ourselves with our senses and only use them when necessary. Socrates point view of philosophy is when one wants to acquire prudence and irrefutable truth, which was discussed in a classroom community among classmates, simply when wants continuously want to learn and can never be satisfied with what they know. By learning, what Socrates means is our soul 's recollecting knowledge that body hinders the soul from remembering. This is seen in Meno where Socrates shows Meno how a boy figuring out the answers to a question is actually recollecting the knowledge instead of learning something new. He would make a statement about our education system and what we currently see as knowledge what was we should see as knowledge. The way we should learn by his definition would be to have classroom discussions sessions as agreed upon by critical think by my classmates and myself in a philosophy course. Socrates would tell us how we would need to focus on recollecting and focus on feeding our soul instead of our bodies, how we would need to make major changes such as our use of technology for only necessary uses and not merely for mindless entertainment much like how we all use laptops, phones, and the
Socrates acknowledges the fact that he knows nothing, at least in areas which he is unlearned in. By knowing this, he has obtained true wisdom, according to the above maxim. So, in essence, he maintains that he is not a smart man, but the Oracle was not flawed in its testimony.
...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.'
The 'doctrine of recollection' states that all true knowledge exists implicitly within us, and can be brought to consciousness - made explicit - by recollection. Using the Platonic concepts of 'Forms', 'particulars', 'knowledge' and 'true opinion', this essay explains what can or cannot be recollected, why all knowledge is based on recollection, and why the doctrine does not prove the soul to be immortal.
Judgment is very hard to use as valid reasoning. Everyone has their own judgments about everything. How does one know if what Socrates was doing was corrupting or improving the youth?... ... middle of paper ... ...
Socrates says that it is also impossible for everyone to know that is right for the youth. He goes on to give an example of a horse. Socrates explains that only one person would be able to train horses correctly, a horse trainer. A horse trainer has been instructed in how to raise horses. A person walking on the road would not be able to train horses properly, because the would have no previous knowledge or experience ...
Caplan 's argument is that,if these theory is allowed perhaps the scientists would not be the
Socrates’ Doctrine of Recollection is invalid because of the flawed procedure that was employed to prove it, its inability to apply to all types of knowledge, and the weakness of the premises that it is based on.
Therefore, Socrates makes a strong case for each of his arguments to prove immortality. The most convincing argument for me was that of the argument of forms while the least effective argument was that of recollection. Although Socrates’ arguments were well supported, each argument had its flaws and still left questions unanswered. The issue that Socrates had with Anaxagoras was that they had a different view on how the workings of the universe should be described. Nevertheless, Socrates acknowledges Anaxagoras and does not undermine his teachings despite the different outlook on how the workings of the universe are.
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?
Socrates argument on immortality, that anything that has an opposite must have resulted from the opposite and there is no other source.3 On the issue of death, Socrates beliefs that death is the opposite of life. He claims that the living from the death and less inverse. The souls of the death could in some way have some link to the living
Socrates was considered by many to be the wisest man in ancient Greece. While he was eventually condemned for his wisdom, his spoken words are still listened to and followed today. When, during his trial, Socrates stated that, “the unexamined life is not worth living” (Plato 45), people began to question his theory. They began to wonder what Socrates meant with his statement, why he would feel that a life would not be worth living. To them, life was above all else, and choosing to give up life would be out of the picture. They did not understand how one would choose not to live life just because he would be unable to examine it.
I think it’s important to first examine the circumstances of what was going on when Socrates stated “the unexamined life is not worth living.” To really get a sense of how critical the situation