Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Meno paradox socrates
Meno socrates explanation
What is the disagreement between Socrates and Meno
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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,
Plato's best-known distinction between knowledge and opinion occurs in the Meno. The distinction rests on an analogy that compares the acquisition and retention of knowledge to the acquisition and retention of valuable material goods. But Plato saw the limitations of the analogy and took pains to warn against learning the wrong lessons from it. In the next few pages I will revisit this familiar analogy with a view to seeing how Plato both uses and distances himself from it.
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.
Another philosophical ideology reflected by Socrates was the importance of the universal truth which helps one be closer to their souls, many principles of ethics and philosophical ideologies that are still used today originate from this concept. He believed the closer to the truth a person gets, the healthier their soul is, the kinder they are and the happier they would be in life. In the words of Socrates, “The soul holds the key to happiness and a good life”. He believed that perfecting the soul would decrease the urge to commit crimes, since they would already have all they need. Socrates called this ‘The care of the soul.’ Most of his philosophies are driven by this belief. For example during Socrates
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, in method true to form, twists the question and re-poses it to Meno to see if Meno can answer it all on his own. Meno lists what he thinks are virtuous qualities, and is content at that simple definition. Socrates then says: "I seem to be in luck, Meno, while I am looking for one virtue, I have found you to have a whole swarm of them."Meno's frustration begins to set in. He tries theatrical metaphor to define virtue, as well as relating to physical philosophy and philosophers such as Empedocles.Meno at this point gives up and hands the philosophy to Socrates. Socrates presents Meno with a paradox:"....He cannot search for what (a debater) 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.
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 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
In Book one of the Republic of Plato, several definitions of justice versus injustice are explored. Cephalus, Polemarchus, Glaucon and Thracymicus all share their opinions and ideas on what actions they believe to be just, while Socrates questions various aspects of the definitions. In book one, Socrates is challenged by Thracymicus, who believes that injustice is advantageous, but eventually convinces him that his definition is invalid. Cephalus speaks about honesty and issues of legality, Polemarchus explores ideas regarding giving to one what is owed, Glaucon views justice as actions committed for their consequences, and Socrates argues that justice does not involve harming anybody. Through the interrogations and arguments he has with four other men, and the similarity of his ideas of justice to the word God, Socrates proves that a just man commits acts for the benefits of others, and inflicts harm on nobody.
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.”
Plato and Aristotle were both very influential men of there time bringing vast knowledge to the world. I honestly believe that Democracy does a lot of good but it definitely has some common side effects. Out of all of Plato's significant ideas, his best was the idea of democracy opening political decisions to the majority who cannot think on behalf of the community. Aristotle on the other hand is very optimistic when it comes to democracy so it becomes a rather interesting compare and contrast between these to men.
In Plato’s Meno, the main question in the dialogue is whether virtue can be taught. In order to figure this answer out, you would have to know what virtue is. Merriam-Webster dictionary states the virtue is a conformity to a standard of right and a particular moral excellence. Oxford dictionaries states that virtue is a behavior showing high moral standards. These and many other dictionaries have similar definitions showing us that there is common ground on the definition of virtue. However this was not a simple task in the platonic dialogue Meno. The story Meno discovers that there is no definite definition to what is virtue? Virtue can be many things.
middle of paper ... ... Since our souls are immortal, virtue and knowledge will be inside our souls forever. At this point, I would like to say there is still a question “is virtue knowledge?” In my opinion, Socrates’s understanding of knowledge and virtue, are all the knowledge of goodness, which are truth and universal.
Socrates held the idea of the soul that breathes life into the body, an idea that became