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.
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.
...e process, Socrates illustrated the fallacy in particular proofs. Socrates deliberately determines excellence is unlike knowledge. This failure furthers Socrates’ argument that a consistent proof must be used correctly. Socrates methods are intended to force Meno’s review of the argument and develop a personal definition of excellence. Meno must determine that a consistent argument develops the same conclusion with every application. As a result, the definition of knowledge will determine that excellence is teachable and attainable. Socratic methods stimulate the development of personal resolutions. Through review, Meno, as the student, must conclude that excellence is attainable because knowledge is attainable. The divinity of the excellence is not sufficient to define excellence in relation to humans. Therefore, excellence must be a genuine characteristic.
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”.
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.”
...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.
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:
“If then virtue is a quality of the soul and is admitted to be profitable, it must be wisdom or prudence since none of the things of the soul are either profitable or hurtful in themselves, but they are all made profitable or hurtful by the addition of wisdom or of folly; and therefore and therefore, if virtue is profitable, virtue must be a sort of wisdom or prudence?” (Socrates, Plato’s Meno) Throughout the complex and confusing book Plato’s Meno, one at the end of the narrative is left a bit dumbfounded. Questions are left in the air, and it is as if Plato hasn’t answered the question he so desperately was set out to solve. Within the story, Socrates and Meno have a series of arguments discussing virtue. However, the problem the reader
He relates virtue to a swarm of bees. There is a difference between different kinds of bees, like honey bees and bumblebees, and the “definition of what it means for any of these things to be a bee” (pg.12). This relates to the difference between different kinds of virtue and what it actually means to be a virtue. There is a major opposition between the two but Meno has less developed understanding and is incompetent of understanding. He needs to see beyond the superficial elements of
This brought them back to virtue. It is a type of knowledge; clearly able to be taught says Meno’s. They both question virtue. Does is make us good? Yes. Beneficial? Yes. It comes from the soul, Socrates states. He doubts that virtue is knowledge, therefore unteachable and coming from within. To really say who is virtuous, and if it cannot be taught, then there can’t be teachers because who is virtuous enough to teach it?
The second problem is Socrates’ answer does not give the definition of virtue nor does it answer Meno’s paradox. All Socrates is saying is that we may be able to recollect the lost knowledge. He does not mention how we can do
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.
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
There was no other Greek philosopher more adamant about the quest for wisdom than Socrates. His desire for knowledge led him through many life experiences and caused his eventual death. Socrates’ view of wisdom is best expressed in Plato’s literary work Apology which follows Socrates as he is charged with corrupting the youth and not believing the gods of Athens. In the story, Plato documents how Socrates visited the oracle of Delphi and was proclaimed the wishes of all the people in Athens. Socrates felt confused; he thought there were more people wiser than he was. He took this information and set out on his quest to find wisdom. Socrates interviews, politicians, poets and craftsman. When he questioned politicians he found people who thought they knew things, but they really knew nothing. When he questioned poets he found people with amazing intellect and inspirations, but not wisdom. Finally, when he interviewed craftsmen he found people who truly had wisdom in their crafts, but n...
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.